ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Energy Security

Tim Yeo: What assessment he has made of the security of the UK's energy supply.

Nicholas Dakin: What steps he is taking to increase the UK’s energy security.

Stephen Mosley: What assessment he has made of the security of the UK's energy supply.

Joan Walley: What steps he is taking to increase the UK’s energy security.

Edward Davey: We have taken a number of measures to ensure the security of the UK’s energy supply, including introducing new electricity system balancing measures. Our recent national gas risk assessment demonstrated that our gas infrastructure is resilient. In the autumn, I will publish the statutory security of supply report for 2014, which will provide a further assessment of our energy security, and set out my response to the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets’ recent electricity capacity report. We have also engaged closely with EU and G7 partners on measures to increase the EU’s energy security.

Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most cost-effective as well as greenest ways to address concerns about security is through greater use of demand-side response, which has been successfully deployed at scale in the United States? Will he undertake to ensure that the treatment of demand-side response providers in the forthcoming capacity market and the transitional arrangements is no less favourable than those available to electricity generators?

Edward Davey: I am pleased at the way in which our demand-side measures have been advancing. They are something on which I have placed a lot of stress. I know that my Minister of State appeared before my hon.
	Friend’s Committee when it was investigating this matter. We certainly want to ensure that we move forward on this and that there is nothing in the way of taking up more demand-side measures.

Nicholas Dakin: Last month, EDF announced that it was temporarily closing four of its nuclear reactors, reducing the UK’s nuclear capacity by a quarter. With most of the nuclear fleet being decommissioned by 2023, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure maximum use of those assets before that date?

Edward Davey: With regards to the two nuclear plants involved, Heysham and Hartlepool, we are taking only precautionary measures to ensure that proper safety and security measures are examined, and I am sure that the whole House will agree that that is the right step. The impact that that will have on our margins over the winter has already been taken account of in National Grid’s analysis and procurement plans. On the hon. Gentleman’s longer point, the whole energy strategy is designed to ensure that we have the capacity that we need not just for the short and medium term but for the long term. I refer him to the investment report that we published in July, which shows a fantastic record of investment in energy across the piece. Indeed, there have been record levels of investment in energy, especially in low-carbon energy.

Stephen Mosley: What action are the Government taking to ensure that gas supplies keep flowing this winter should Russian gas stop flowing to the EU?

Edward Davey: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The UK imports very little gas from Russia. We have the most liquid and resilient gas markets in the whole of the European Union, but of course we are not complacent. We have been working at the EU to ensure not only that we check resilience of our gas supplies but that our EU colleagues are able to ensure their energy security. This is an EU measure which is very important for the whole of the European Union.

Joan Walley: One of the best things that the Secretary of State can do for continued investment is to bring forward the 2030 decarbonisation target to give long-term certainty to investors.
	There is a particular issue with regard to gas and gas storage, which is impacting on ceramic manufacturers. Now that we have a new Minister, who is at the Department of Energy and Climate Change and at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and National Grid has announced that it has brought forward the supplemental balancing reserve tender, which will put even greater pressure on energy suppliers and security this winter, it is absolutely essential that the Secretary of State reconsiders his Department’s stance on gas storage. We urgently need a change of policy on extra gas storage.

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady knows that we legislated to introduce a decarbonisation target for 2030 in the Energy Act 2013. She also knows that my party strongly supported that.
	We looked at gas storage in huge detail to see whether there was a case for Government intervention, but we found that an awful lot of gas storage was being built
	with more modern technology, which means that the gas can be produced and brought into the pipeline network much more quickly. We have looked at that matter in detail and we do not intend to review it.

Peter Lilley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problems we are facing illustrate that, despite huge investment, wind and other renewables cannot replace conventional fuels and require additional capacity megawatt for megawatt to meet need when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine? Will he confirm that the Government’s costings for renewables do not take into account the cost of supplying an additional amount of conventional capacity?

Edward Davey: We need a mixed approach to energy supply and generation. The Government have always argued that we need renewables, gas and new nuclear and that diversity gives a country extra strength in its security of supply. When we do our analysis we consider all the system costs, not just of renewables but of nuclear and other systems, and no type of electricity generation is without its challenges. For example, in the short term, we have seen fires at two coal plants, Ironbridge and Ferrybridge, that we are having to take into account in our analysis to ensure that our capacity margins are okay over the winter. The mixed approach that we propose is the most secure.

Caroline Flint: The future of Thoresby and Kellingley coal mines has now been in limbo for more than five months, which raises concerns about energy security. Both the Business Secretary and the previous Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), said that they were not open to supporting or providing state aid, but the new Minister of State has indicated in meetings that he may be open to state aid, so will the Secretary of State clear up once and for all whether the Government will consider providing it?

Edward Davey: Important though the issue is, it is not an issue of energy security. Even if those collieries were in any way to be suspended, the energy security of the country would be okay. The Government have worked tirelessly with the different companies involved to do what we can to help them reach a deal that will ensure the future of those pits, and we will continue to do just that.

Caroline Flint: It really is important that we have clarity about the future of these mines. It helps no one—not UK Coal, not other potential investors and not the work force and their representatives—for this uncertainty to continue. The Business Secretary and the previous Energy Minister indicated that they were not open to providing state aid, whereas the new Minister has indicated that he may be open to state aid, so will the Secretary of State clarify? Will the Government not support state aid or have they changed their mind?

Edward Davey: We consider all options, but the right hon. Lady presents state aid as a “get out of jail free” option when it is not. If the European Commission were presented with the state aid case, it is extremely likely that by the end of the support it would require the
	collieries to close. We think that there is an advantage in a commercial approach and that is what our attention is focused on.

Renewable Energy Investment

Mark Menzies: What assessment he has made of trends in renewable energy investment since 2010.

Matthew Hancock: Since 2010, an average of £7 billion has been invested each year in renewable electricity, compared with £3 billion a year in the previous Parliament.

Mark Menzies: May I take this opportunity to welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role? There has been a recent proposal for a tidal gateway across the Ribble estuary that could provide enough electricity for 18,000 homes. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the project and ensure that environmental considerations will be at the forefront of the proposal?

Matthew Hancock: The project is proceeding and I would be very happy to hear more detail about my hon. Friend’s position and support for the project. Ensuring that we get renewable investment of all kinds is an important part of our plan to deal with climate change and increase energy security, and that is something on which we are working hard.

Dennis Skinner: The Minister has just heard an exchange about the question of state aid that specifically referred to him. We met the miners from the three deep-mine pits that are left, Kellingley, Thoresby and Hatfield, which are in peril. I am talking about energy supply, something for which the Minister is responsible. This Government took £700 million out of the miners’ pension fund last February and all we want is £70 million of state aid for those three coal pits to exhaust their reserves. Treat us like you do the oil companies when you give them tax breaks in the North sea and let us exploit the reserves in the three remaining pits.

Matthew Hancock: I have much to learn from the hon. Gentleman, but that question was not really about renewable energy. Since taking up this post, I have been working hard for a solution to the issues around UK Coal. The Secretary of State set out some of the downsides to a state aid solution. I am prepared to look at all options, but we should be clear that the EU Commission is absolute that it would require a closure of those mines were we to put in place a state aid solution. I come from Nottinghamshire mining stock and I will not take any nonsense from the hon. Gentleman.

David Jones: Later this month, I shall be attending a meeting in north Wales to discuss the construction of a tidal lagoon at Colwyn bay—one of several that are planned for the coast of Wales and the north of England. Does my right hon. Friend agree that tidal lagoons have the potential to make an enormous contribution to the energy security of this country, and what is he doing to encourage their development?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, tidal has enormous potential. Only last month, at Pentland firth, we saw the roll-out of the biggest tidal array yet. I look forward to working very closely with my right hon. Friend.

Barry Sheerman: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post. I hope he is as energetic in it as he was as Minister for Skills and Enterprise. May I press him on the sustainability issue? Is he aware that the Trillion Fund is a new way of raising money for sustainable energy projects, both in this country and worldwide? It is a very exciting new venture. Vivienne Westwood has just invested £1 million in it. Will the Minister get behind that crowdfunding initiative and give it some support?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is very kind; I am grateful for his compliments. I look forward to the opportunity of working positively with Vivienne Westwood on improving our energy supplies and security. We need improvement across the board, and that includes ensuring that we make the most of our indigenous gas supplies. Improving renewables in our country is, of course, about finance as well as technology on the ground. There is a big opportunity, especially as the cost of renewables falls—the cost of solar is pre-eminent in that fall—and we must seize it with both hands.

Neil Carmichael: Skills, as well as nuclear, are important to pushing forward the renewable energy cause, so does the Minister agree that, as part of the long-term economic plan, the investment by the growth fund in Berkeley for a skills and training centre in green and other energy sources is an excellent way forward?

Matthew Hancock: Yes; I know something about that proposal from my previous job. I am of course a great fan of the skills agenda and I am convinced of the need to drive up the quality and quantity of skills in this area. I am also a big fan of the long-term economic plan, so my hon. Friend’s question just about hit the nail on the head.

Julie Elliott: Onshore wind developments are being held up by huge delays in the planning system. Since 2009, onshore wind projects have taken, on average, an additional four months to receive planning approval. In total, developments are taking more than four years from the point of application to generating electricity—an increase of over a year since 2009. Can the Minister explain why?

Matthew Hancock: The easiest way is to say that local people’s views are now being taken into account, and I am very glad that they are. It is funny to get such a question from the Labour Front Bench, given that the amount of investment in renewables has doubled in this Parliament—it has doubled on the previous Parliament. At the same time, though, we have strengthened planning rules to allow more control by local people, because the worst way to try to improve the roll-out of renewables, which is important for energy security as well as for climate change, is to ignore the position and the views of local people. That was what happened under the previous Administration and we have changed that.

Julie Elliott: That was not an answer to my question, and I have to say that most of the developments started under a Labour Government. The figures reveal shocking delays to vital new energy infrastructure. Delays to onshore wind and the use of recoveries and call-ins, not local people, mean that projects are left languishing for years before they receive an answer. Those delays cost jobs and threaten our energy security. What urgent steps is the Minister taking, and what discussions has he had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to sort out this mess?

Matthew Hancock: I have discussions with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to ensure that local people’s views are taken into account. The hon. Lady says that the extra investments are due to decisions taken under the previous Government, but that is not true. There is an increase in renewables roll-out, but we have to do it taking local people’s views into account, because to save the global environment and tackle climate change, we cannot sacrifice our local environment, particularly in beautiful places. Getting that balance right is very important. It was not right before and we have put it right.

Sustainable Energy

Michael Fabricant: What his Department’s policy is on promoting sustainable energy sources; what estimate he has made of future UK generating capacity from such sources; and if he will make a statement.

Matthew Hancock: We have a range of measures in place to promote sustainable energy sources, including reforms to the electricity market to support nuclear, renewables and carbon capture and storage. The percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources has doubled from 7% in 2010 to 14% at the end of last year.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer, but it demonstrates that renewables are not the only way and something we can depend on for electricity supply. I note that generation from nuclear power went down slightly in the first quarter of this year, from 18% to 17.7%. What action is he taking to ensure that nuclear energy expands in the years to come?

Matthew Hancock: The whole Department is supporting and driving the first new generation nuclear power stations, which are extremely important for our energy security and the energy mix. Of course a mix is the best way to deliver energy. Renewables are important and are now a material part of our energy supply, but nuclear is zero-carbon energy, too, so we are working hard to land the new generation of nuclear power stations.

Derek Twigg: Is it still Government policy to support energy from waste incineration? There are problems in my constituency, where the biggest incinerator, run by Viridor, is causing problems of emissions, odours and noise. Will he ask his officials to have a look at the situation in Runcorn to see what is going wrong there?

Matthew Hancock: There are opportunities in energy from waste, not least because it deals with two problems at once, but we have to make sure we get the details right. I will be happy to look at the case the hon. Gentleman raises.

Gregory Barker: The record growth, the record deployment, the record investment in renewables under this coalition Government are hugely to their credit, but there is more that we can do. Solar is a particularly exciting opportunity, as my right hon. Friend says, and we are about to smash through 4 GW of solar deployed under this Government, but we need to do more to unlock the potential of roofs, particularly commercial and industrial roof space. Will he pledge to work with my hon. Friends to continue to tear down the barriers to deployment?

Matthew Hancock: Here I am trumpeting this Government’s successes in deployment of renewable investment, and there is the man who led the charge. I pay huge tribute to the work my right hon. Friend did—he did an absolutely terrific job. Thanks to his work, 1 million people now live with solar panels on their roof. I think solar is one of the big opportunities. As the price falls and it becomes competitive—potentially grid competitive—in the short to medium term, solar is a big opportunity, even in cloudy old England.

David Hanson: Following on from the exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), what assessment has the Minister made of the impact of a brake on wind farm development on land on our burgeoning wind farm manufacturing industry and on companies such as West Coast Energy in my constituency, which create hundreds of jobs specialising in that growth area of the economy?

Matthew Hancock: The doubling of investment in renewables under this Government has undoubtedly helped those people, as it has helped many other people to get jobs, which is one of the reasons we are seeing record jobs in this country as part of our long-term economic plan.

James Gray: The people of north and west Wiltshire strongly support renewable energy, but we are besieged by hundreds of planning applications from London-based commercial operations for solar farms, not on roofs of factories or brownfield sites, but on greenfield sites across the county. Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the strong message that our right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) previously sent out, which is a strong presumption against the use of agricultural land and a strong presumption in favour of industrial roofs and other places?

Matthew Hancock: There are opportunities for solar, where appropriately sited, in many different places on roofs and on land. In fact, land can be combined with agricultural use and solar. One other advantage of solar is that it can effectively be masked from being seen from elsewhere because it is low-rise rather than high-rise. This has to be done sensitively. There is no point in destroying our green and pleasant land in order to save
	the global environment. We have to tackle security of supply and climate change in a way that also protects the local environment.

Onshore Wind Farms

Henry Bellingham: What plans he has to change the subsidy regime for onshore wind farms; and if he will make a statement.

Matthew Hancock: In future, instead of a fixed level of subsidy, onshore wind will have to bid for support through our new contracts for difference, which will be allocated competitively so that only the best-value projects are supported. The first allocation rounds open in October.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that Norfolk hosts a large number of offshore wind arrays that command widespread public support, in stark contrast to most—not all—onshore wind farms, which can be very unpopular when they destroy beautiful landscapes? Further to his earlier reply, can he confirm that Norfolk will not have any more onshore wind farms imposed on it in the face of local opposition?

Matthew Hancock: As I said, we have given more local control in the planning system, as well as changing the subsidy regime so that onshore wind would have to be competitive, for instance, against solar. As the costs of solar fall, it is increasingly able to compete for that subsidy. This is about getting the best possible value for money out of the subsidy but also ensuring that local people have a say in the planning system. I know some of the sites that my hon. Friend is talking about—indeed, I visited, or rather went past, one of the developments last month—so I know of the local concern in his constituency. We have to make sure that in future local people have more of a say, and we are doing that.

Andrew Robathan: We should be very proud of the investment in renewable energy and the progress that has been made over the past four years, making this the greenest Government ever, to coin a phrase. The current policy of reducing the subsidies is absolutely sensible. However, may I gently say that sometimes those who make the most noise are a very vocal minority? My experience in my constituency is that a very few vocal people oppose wind farms whereas most people say, “Actually, not only do we not mind them, we quite like them.”

Matthew Hancock: Where local people not only do not mind local wind farms but quite like them, and the local council decides that that is their democratic decision, giving them more power over the placement of local turbines is the right approach. This is about making sure that we have support locally.

Philip Hollobone: Under the planning system there are separate land use categories for houses, industry and retail but there is no separate land use category entitled “energy generation”. This is an accident of history, because when electricity was first generated it was done only by the Crown using Crown prerogative. The reason local authorities are struggling
	with all the planning applications for wind farms and solar farms is that they do not have this separate land use category. Will the Minister be kind enough to agree to meet me and the Minister responsible for local government to see how that category could be introduced, because it would better facilitate and regulate the flow of planning applications through all the district councils up and down the land?

Matthew Hancock: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and the relevant Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government, because of course planning issues are directly for that Department. While there may not be a separate category within the planning rules at one level, there is guidance explaining how the rules should be applied in terms of energy generation and transmission, so we just have to make sure that the details are right.

Energy Bills

Julie Hilling: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Edward Davey: Energy bills are a real concern for many households, so we are helping people with them by providing direct financial help, encouraging competition, and supporting energy efficiency measures. Last December, we reviewed Government policy costs and made changes to take an average of £50 a year off a household’s bill, and we are making it easier to shop around, switch, and get the best deal. We are also providing direct financial help to the most vulnerable through the warm home discount, which will take £140 directly off the energy bills of more than 2 million of the poorest households this year.

Julie Hilling: Gas and electricity prices are falling, but bills are not, and profits for domestic suppliers doubled in the past year. In Bolton West, more than 40,000 households would save £120 from Labour’s energy price freeze, so why will the Government not freeze their bills?

Edward Davey: We all know that Labour’s energy price freeze is a con. We know that the energy companies will put their prices up directly after the freeze, that it will hurt competition and push out the smaller suppliers that are giving people real choice and helping them cut their bills now, and that it will cut investment. Everyone knows that Labour’s energy bill freeze is a con and would not work.

Graham Jones: Last year Hyndburn council launched a scheme to deal with hard-to-treat homes, based on the energy companies obligation. In the autumn statement, that funding was withdrawn and all the leaflets had to go in the skip. This summer it launched a scheme with the green deal home improvement fund. All the leaflets were printed, but the goalposts were moved and on the last day before the recess the fund was scrapped, and all the leaflets have gone in the bin. My constituency has tremendous problems with homes that need insulating and renewable energy. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that that funding reaches my constituents in a constituency that needs it?

Edward Davey: This Government have a very good record on energy efficiency and we want to help the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others to cut their bills through energy efficiency. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we made some changes to ECO, and that was in order to take £50 on average off people’s bills. I hope he supports that and that he will tell his constituents about that cut in their bills which this Government have delivered.

Energy Efficiency

Jeremy Lefroy: What steps he is taking to increase the UK’s energy efficiency in comparison to that of other industrialised states.

Amber Rudd: The innovation of UK business, underpinned by a range of policy measures, has seen the UK become a world leader on energy efficiency. Since 2006 we have had the least energy-intensive economy in the G7. According to the 2013 energy projections the UK is on track to overachieve against its 2020 European Union energy efficiency targets, while collectively the EU has more work to do.

Jeremy Lefroy: Energy-intensive industries, including ceramics, brick and tile-making and steel, have done a huge amount over the past two decades to improve their energy efficiency, yet they face competition from companies both within the EU and elsewhere whose energy costs are subsidised, whether overtly or covertly. Will my hon. Friend set out what the Government are doing to ensure that UK energy-intensive industries are not put at a competitive disadvantage?

Amber Rudd: The Government recognise both the challenges that high energy costs represent for industry, particularly energy-intensive industries, and the progress made to improve efficiency across many sectors. That is why in Budget 2014 the Government announced a £500 million-a-year package for support for energy-intensive industries, including compensation for the cost of renewable support schemes and providing relief from the climate change levy, including full exemptions for the metallurgical and mineralogical sectors. Together with the amendments to the carbon price floor, those changes will be worth about £7 billion to businesses in the UK.

Lilian Greenwood: Thanks to the work of Nottingham Energy Partnership and Nottingham city council, many of my constituents want solid wall insulation to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, but the sudden closure of the green deal home improvement fund just a month after it opened means that they cannot afford it and local firms offering to insulate cannot plan future work. The Secretary of State dodged the question, but what is the answer: what went wrong and when will there be some certainty about the future of this scheme?

Amber Rudd: I simply do not recognise the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the scheme. It has been a great success, and it is because of its success that we had to close it early. More than 20,000 new homes are going to receive energy-efficiency measures and I would hope that the hon. Lady would welcome that.

Ronnie Campbell: When it comes to efficiency, would it not be more effective to allow this country’s three remaining deep-pit coal mines to exhaust their reserves, rather than bringing in Russian coal, which Putin could stop tomorrow, and also American coal?

Amber Rudd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Of course this country’s energy mix must include renewables as well as coal. I think that my hon. Friend has largely answered that question already.

Wind Farms (Payments)

Graham Stringer: What steps he is taking to reduce payments to owners of wind farms that are not producing electricity.

Matthew Hancock: In 2012 the Government introduced new licence conditions to prevent generators profiting unfairly from transmission constraint. That has enabled National Grid to halve the average amount paid per unit of electricity to wind farms to reduce output. In the medium term, planned network upgrades will reduce further the overall level of constraint costs.

Graham Stringer: On one day in August, the Government spent £2.8 million on wind farms that were not producing electricity. “Money for Nothing” might be a good pop lyric, but it is not a good policy for a Government who are short of money. The Minister of State, when he was a Back Bencher, said that payments to wind farms should be drastically cut. Would not reducing these absurd payments to zero be a good start?

Matthew Hancock: Constraint payments have been in place for many years, and those for renewable energy are no different from those for other types of energy. They are part of making sure that we have the right amount of power in the grid. The Government have halved the amount paid per unit of electricity, so the hon. Gentleman, rather than harping, should stand up and say, “Congratulations. Can we do some more?”

Energy Efficiency

Clive Betts: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Grahame Morris: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Amber Rudd: Over 750,000 homes were improved under the green deal and ECO between January 2013 and June 2014, and we are on track to meet our target of improving the energy efficiency of 1 million homes by March 2015. A further 20,000 homes could be improved under the green deal home improvement fund, which has a pipeline of work over the coming months. In the longer term, we are providing certainty
	for the market through the extension of ECO until 2017 and up to £120 million of funding in each of the next two years for future schemes.

Clive Betts: Ministers must be the only people who believe that the green deal has been a great success for either householders or small businesses—small businesses that are suffering cash-flow problems because of the Department’s delays in paying for vouchers; small businesses that lost out because they sold customers green deal assessments that could not be completed before the scheme was cancelled; small businesses being offered vouchers on the black market for up to £1,000 for solid wall insulation. When will the Government sort out the problems that they have created for small businesses?

Amber Rudd: The Government are very aware of the efforts that small businesses make and want to support them, as we continue to do in every Department. The answer to the question is that, because of the outstanding success of the green deal home improvement fund, we are making every effort to ensure that every voucher is correct. The hon. Gentleman has described a situation that would not be in accordance with the rules of the green deal home improvement fund, and it is for that reason that we must be absolutely certain that every application is correct, because we are looking after taxpayers’ money.

Grahame Morris: Last year the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), said that he would have sleepless nights if fewer than 10,000 people had signed up to the green deal by the end of the year. The latest figures I have seen show that just over 1,800 people have signed up. I welcome the new Minister to her post, but may I inquire how well she is sleeping?

Amber Rudd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I am sleeping perfectly well, but I am also enjoying standing up here today. I think that he is referring to the green deal finance plan, rather than the green deal itself. Green deal measures continue to be a great success and people can fund them however they want; some do so through the green deal finance plan, and some do so through other sources.

Jonathan Reynolds: As we have heard, it is now six weeks since the green deal home improvement fund closed overnight without notice, yet we still have not heard an account of what happened from the Government. The Minister might believe that it has been a great success, but the hundreds of people who stand to lose their jobs as a result of this incompetence would probably disagree. When will she be able to tell us just how many of the vouchers that are issued will be redeemed? What is she doing to help consumers get the measures they need? Crucially, if the Government have nothing to hide, does she agree that the Public Accounts Committee should conduct an investigation into this shocking example of Government incompetence?

Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman is a little ahead of himself. We are still looking at the applications. Because of the success of the scheme, we are having to do a detailed review of all the vouchers. It is a little early to
	talk about the Public Accounts Committee. I remain confident that the scheme is a great success, that we will look after small businesses and that it will deliver what we intended: the energy efficiencies in consumers’ houses that are so important to us all.

Carbon and Renewables Targets

David Mowat: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in other EU member states on carbon and renewables targets.

Edward Davey: I have engaged extensively with my EU counterparts on the European Commission’s proposals for a 2030 climate and energy framework. That has included discussions at the Energy and Environment Councils in March, May, June and July, and several meetings of the green growth group of like-minded EU Ministers, which I established. Throughout the discussions, I have stressed the need for early political agreement on an ambitious, cost-effective and flexible 2030 framework. That is important to unlock investment and to put the EU in a stronger position for the global climate negotiations in 2015.

David Mowat: To date, EU targets have focused principally on renewables, not on carbon reduction. The result is that countries such as Holland, Germany and Denmark, which produce more carbon per capita than us, have exceeded their renewables targets. Will the Secretary of State ensure that any future targets that we sign up to are focused on carbon reduction, which is the primary aim, and not on the secondary aim of renewables? That would allow nuclear, carbon capture and storage and gas to play a part in other states.

Edward Davey: As my hon. Friend is a huge expert in this area, he will know that the electricity market reforms in this country have been deliberately technology neutral. That will be the case as the market evolves over the next decade and more. This country has therefore not had targets for particular technologies. We want the market to decide on the mix. That is the approach that we have taken in the European negotiations. We have argued for the most ambitious greenhouse gas emissions target of any member state and for it to be technology neutral. I am delighted to report to the House that we are winning that argument.

European Interconnection

Oliver Colvile: What steps he is taking to improve interconnections with energy markets in other European countries.

Edward Davey: Increasing electricity interconnection is an important part of our policy because it supports our energy objectives. The gas market is already well connected. Last December, I published “More interconnection: improving energy security and lowering bills”, which sets out our plans. A new regulatory regime for investment has since been announced. The Government have made a commitment to open our
	capacity market to interconnected capacity from 2015 and have supported about 6 GW of projects to benefit from European projects of common interest status.

Oliver Colvile: Following the visit to Plymouth of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who was enthusiastic about the marine energy park, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with Plymouth city council to ensure that the marine energy park is delivered as part of the Plymouth and south-west peninsula city deal?

Edward Davey: I have had no personal discussions with Plymouth city council on that matter. I will ensure that those discussions are taken forward either by the Minister of State or myself. That idea is part of our long-term plan. My hon. Friend is right that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle did a fantastic job on marine parks, not just in the south-west, but elsewhere. That is part of the way in which we want to take forward marine and tidal energy.

Alan Whitehead: What progress has the Secretary of State made on the Iceland and Norway interconnectors? Will he produce a report for the House on the potential for securing the supply of substantial amounts of very low-carbon energy into the country through those interconnectors?

Edward Davey: The Norway project—the NSN project—is particularly exciting because there is a massive surplus of hydroelectric power that could come through a cable from Norway. Those talks have been really effective. The announcements that Ofgem and the Department have made—particularly that we will allow interconnector capacity to bid into the capacity market from 2015—have been well received in Oslo by the Norwegian authorities. I am confident about that interconnector project. The idea behind IceLink is that we could get a cable from Iceland to Scotland and supply geothermal energy through it. We are waiting to hear from the Icelandic authorities on how they want to take that project forward.

Fracking

Ian Lucas: What steps he is taking to ensure the safety of fracking.

Matthew Hancock: Shale gas, carefully extracted, offers the potential to improve the security of Britain’s energy supplies and create jobs. All onshore projects are subject to scrutiny through the planning system, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive.

Ian Lucas: Many of my constituents are expressing concerns about fracking. If the Minister wants to take the public with him when he is dealing with energy applications, will he agree to Labour’s amendments to the Infrastructure Bill to allow baseline assessments so that people’s concerns can be assessed?

Matthew Hancock: We are looking carefully at all the amendments that have been tabled to the Infrastructure Bill. In several cases, the amendments reiterate what already happens. We want to ensure that we make the
	most of Britain’s indigenous energy supplies in a way that is safe and secure, creates jobs and will give us better security of supply. We will consider all measures to try to do that.

David Nuttall: Given that the UK has been producing nuclear energy safely for nearly 60 years without any major problems, does the Minister agree that, given all the safety regulation we have, there is no reason to believe that this country is not capable of extracting shale gas safely?

Matthew Hancock: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend, and that is what we are going to do.

John Robertson: I have not made my mind up on fracking yet, but the information that we get is a bit like the Scottish Government’s White Paper—full of words but with no answers. Will the Minister ensure that the people of this country are fully informed about fracking and what is happening with it?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. We have an intensive communication plan, and I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is included in any future communications. I can particularly recommend to him one of the Department for Energy and Climate Change publications, which explains in clear detail exactly what fracking is, how it is safe and the regulatory structure for it. It is important to ensure that we take advantage of this indigenous and secure domestic energy supply, but in a way that is safe and secure.

Global Climate Agreement

Gavin Shuker: What steps he is taking to secure a legally binding global climate agreement.

Edward Davey: If we are to meet the objective of the convention and avoid dangerous climate change, it is imperative that we secure an international, legally binding agreement, with mitigation commitments for all, in Paris in 2015. To facilitate that, I have pressed our case at a number of international ministerial climate change meetings this year, as well as bilaterally with my counterparts in Governments and with other key actors across the globe, including in China, the US and India. I will, as usual, attend the United Nations framework convention on climate change ministerial conference of parties in December this year, and I will also attend the UN Secretary-General’s climate summit in September, which will be the first meeting of leaders focused solely on climate change since 2009. Closer to home, I am continuing to push for EU agreement to an ambitious 2030 emissions reduction target of at least 40%, including by convening the green growth group of Ministers.

Gavin Shuker: Climate change will affect the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he is working with officials and Ministers at the Department for International Development, and that the Government are looking to make an announcement about initial capitalisation of the international green climate fund before the Ban Ki-moon summit?

Edward Davey: I can certainly confirm that we work across Government—not just my Department and DFID but other Departments as well—to ensure that the international climate finance fund that we announced at the beginning of our time in office is wisely spent, particularly to help the poorest, most vulnerable and most exposed.
	On the hon. Gentleman’s other question, we will make a capital bid to the green climate fund, but I do not think we will necessarily announce it before the UN Secretary-General’s New York summit.

Kerry McCarthy: The Chinese President has just said that he will not attend Ban Ki-moon’s summit, which follows Prime Minister Modi of India saying the same. Given the statement that the Environment Ministers of the BASIC countries—Brazil, South Africa, India and China—issued in New Delhi recently, does the Secretary of State share my concern that it looks like countries such as India and China are rowing back from their enthusiasm for pushing for an international climate agreement?

Edward Davey: No, I do not. In my visits to Beijing and Delhi I see the reverse. I see the Chinese taking climate change more seriously than they have ever done, not just in what they say at the international table but in the actions they take—massive investment in renewable energy and low-carbon energy such as nuclear—not least because of the impact of air pollution in some of their cities on the eastern border. Equally for India, I think that Prime Minister Modi will be a global leader on this issue.

Topical Questions

Oliver Colvile: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Davey: I start by paying tribute to my two ministerial colleagues who have moved on. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) will serve in the Cabinet after his excellent work at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) for his astonishing contribution, especially in arguing the case for action on climate change. He will be missed in the House, given that he is not seeking re-election.
	I welcome my new colleagues, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who have already made an impressive start.
	I also bring to the House’s attention the investment report I mentioned earlier, which we published in July. It shows the record amounts of energy investment that the coalition Government have achieved, especially in low carbon, and I inform the House that after a review of the fourth carbon budget I have decided to leave it unchanged.

Oliver Colvile: When last year I raised the impact of standing charges on those in fuel poverty, my right hon. Friend said that he would keep the issue under review. What assessment has he made of the issue since then?

Edward Davey: As my hon. Friend will know, we have published a draft fuel poverty strategy. It sets out a range of measures that we would like to take, not least some ambitious new targets for tackling fuel poverty, and the issue raised by my hon. Friend is part of that. Ofgem’s retail market review looked at standing charges and their operation, and that analysis will feed into the consultation on the strategy.

Caroline Flint: In the early exchanges, a difference of approach seemed to arise out of the support or non-support for Thoresby and Kellingley coal mines. Will the Minister of State clarify whether he is open to a state-aid application, and say what form of assistance he would make available to UK Coal? If a formal application is made, how quickly will the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills decide whether to present the case to the Commission? If that is not the case, will he explain why the £4 million loan has been delayed, and say when he expects that money to reach the mines?

Matthew Hancock: As the Secretary of State and I have described, the commercial option has the benefit of being under the control of UK Coal, and we are working towards that. It has not been delayed; it is a matter of ensuring that it can be done on a commercial basis. On whether we should go further and look at state aid, as I have said, I have been open to all options but there are some serious downsides, not least that the Commission would require the coal mines to close.

Alan Beith: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that consumers in rural areas with no mains gas and predominantly solid wall properties still find it difficult to access help to cut their fuel bills? He has visited such properties in my constituency. Is he still working to help them?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question and he has been a real champion of that issue. When I visited his constituency I saw how some rural properties off gas grid have high energy bills because they cannot use gas. This is very much at the heart of the new thinking in our draft fuel poverty strategy, which is now out to consultation. The Department has stepped up its work on that, and we hope to bring proposals to the House by the end of the year.

Barry Sheerman: Has the Minister seen the report from scientists in Aberdeen working with Cambridge university about the predicted 80% increase in global greenhouse emissions from the production of food, and particularly our increasing reliance—worldwide, but in this country too—on red meat? Will he talk to his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about that and say what he will do about it?

Edward Davey: It certainly is an interesting report and, along with many other issues, we need to consider it very seriously, although that sector does not constitute a big part of the UK’s projected emissions growth. The issue has formed part of the European negotiations. Other European countries are looking to expand their agriculture sectors and this is a big issue for them—a genuine issue. It is part of the wider negotiations, and we have to take it seriously.

Gregory Barker: When my right hon. Friend travels to New York later this month for the climate summit, will he tell the strong story that in the UK, thanks to the Climate Change Act 2008, passed under the last Labour Government, and this coalition’s hitting of our carbon budgets, coupled with our economy having the strongest growth in the G8, it has been possible to have strong growth and to reduce emissions, and that Britain is continuing to show genuine international green leadership?

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Green growth is a reality in the UK. Expanding low carbon is part of the Government’s long-term economic plan, and we want to ensure that others focus on that as well. That is why we established the green growth group at the EU and have sponsored the new climate economy study due to be launched later this month, ahead of the UN Secretary-General’s summit. That will send a message to Heads of State around the world that it is possible to go green and continue to prosper and develop.

Mary Glindon: Maersk Oil will shortly begin the process of awarding major construction contracts for the exploitation of the Culzean field in the UK sector of the central North sea. Maersk will receive significant tax incentives from the UK Treasury, but what help and support is being given to UK fabricators to ensure that they can reasonably benefit from the development?

Matthew Hancock: Having a joined-up strategy so that when there is further development in the UK continental shelf we ensure that the whole supply chain is in a position to benefit is an important part of our long-term economic plan—it was great to hear the Secretary of State talk about our long-term economic plan. It is undoubtedly important that, as has happened over many decades, the whole supply chain in the UK benefits from development and exploitation of our indigenous reserves.

Grahame Morris: I would like to press the Secretary of State on answers he gave earlier about support for the remnants of the coal industry. Thousands of coal miners’ jobs are hanging by a thread, yet his response was that there were issues about committing to closure, but that is not necessarily a problem as long as those pits are allowed to exhaust their known reserves.

Edward Davey: What I have said—and what other Ministers have said—is that the Government have worked incredibly closely not just with the commercial companies involved but with unions and others to help everybody come to a result. I have to tell the House, however, that the coal industry is not nationalised; it is in private hands, and we need to work with the commercial operators.

David Mowat: Will the Secretary of State update the House on the position regarding state aid clearance on Hinkley Point C?

Edward Davey: We are actively involved in discussions with the European Commission on this vital state aid notification and have been meeting it over the summer. Most recently, officials met Vice-President Almunia’s team in Brussels yesterday, and I had a report yesterday evening. Those discussions are intense and, I think, very constructive.

Graham Stringer: The Government are supporting the roll-out of smart meters that are not so smart: they cannot communicate with smartphones. When will Ministers rectify this failure of Government policy?

Matthew Hancock: Action is under way to ensure we get the best possible energy efficiency from both smart meters and private developments, such as smart thermostats—this summer, I installed a smart thermostat, so I can turn the electricity and heating in my home on and off from my iPhone. Getting the best cost savings for consumers as well as reducing energy demand by enhancing and embracing technology is a vital part of what we are doing.

Diana Johnson: With Hull city council yesterday granting final planning permission to Siemens, will the Secretary of State join me in encouraging everyone to take advantage of the new green jobs that will be coming to the city, while deploring the statement that UKIP put out saying it would rather the wind turbine jobs went abroad and the statement of the Hull Green party, which last week told BBC Radio Humberside that it did not rule out boycotting Siemens?

Edward Davey: The whole House can unite behind what the hon. Lady has said. First, it is very good news that Hull city council has gone for planning permission. This Government have worked with the council, with Siemens and with others to bring forward this exciting and vital investment, which is a real shot in the arm for the offshore wind supply chain that we are determined to see as a healthy sector in this country. The statements from UKIP that the hon. Lady mentioned are deplorable and, as with almost everything UKIP says, are against this country’s economic interests. I am particularly surprised to hear that the Green party would want to boycott a company of the standing of Siemens, which has done so much in this country.

Dennis Skinner: In this Energy Question Time, we have heard from the Government Front Bench that the Government are giving assistance,
	money and help to almost every energy industry in the country—nuclear, commercial operators in the North sea, companies assisting in solar panel investment and all the rest. The only energy industry that is getting no help—it is getting a lot of talk and waffle from Ministers—is the coal industry, and 3,000 jobs are on the line. Do this Government want to allow them to be sacked—a question that has been asked several times by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)? We have had enough talk; we want some action. The Government should give some state aid to keep those pits in operation so that the reserves can be exhausted. Get to it!

Matthew Hancock: I am delighted to say that I have spent the last two months working hard with UK Coal, meeting the head of the National Union of Mineworkers and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to ensure that we can come to an arrangement that will help and support coal mining in this country. [Interruption.] From that heritage, which I have, we are looking for practical support for coal mining in the UK—instead of the shouting and the waffle from the man opposite.

Alan Whitehead: Will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision to exclude households that are renting less than a complete building from his proposals to require landlords to improve the energy efficiency of their properties to at least band E by 2018?

Edward Davey: First, let me say how delighted I am that we are consulting on new regulations to require private landlords to improve the energy efficiency of the homes they rent to tenants, which is an important move. I hope that Members of all parties will participate in that consultation. The hon. Gentleman raises an important and serious issue. I hope he will participate in the conversation, which is intended to give people the chance to consider the very issue he raises.

David Hanson: What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the likelihood of coal gasification progressing in areas such as the River Dee in north Wales?

Edward Davey: I do not know about the proposal relating to the River Dee in north Wales. Coal gasification is one of the many technologies that we look at in the Department. It is not one at the forefront of our thinking at the moment, but if the right hon. Gentleman would care to write about the specific scheme he mentions, I should be pleased to receive a letter from him.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the next week?

William Hague: The business for next week will be:
	Monday 8 September—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill, followed by a general debate on food fraud. The subject for this debate was recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 9 September—Motions relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Legislative Reform (Clinical Commissioning Groups) Order. To follow that the Chairman Of Ways And Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
	Wednesday 10 September—General debate on Ukraine, the middle east, north Africa and security, followed by a debate on a motion relating to a Select Committee on governance of the House. The subject for this debate was recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Thursday 11 September—Debate on a motion relating to carbon taxes and energy-intensive industries, followed by a general debate on Gurkha pensions and terms of employment. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 12 September—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 13 October will include:
	Monday 13 October—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 11 September will be:
	Thursday 11 September—General debate on the political and humanitarian situation in Kashmir.

Angela Eagle: May I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business?
	The barbaric and disgusting murder of a second US hostage in Syria this week has appalled the world, and reinforced the fact that the threat of ISIL must be dealt with. The Prime Minister is right to say that we should work internationally to build alliances, and also that we need to take strong action against terrorism at home. We will support him in that aim. I welcome the foreign affairs debate announced by the Leader of the House for next Wednesday. Given this fast-moving and dangerous situation, will he assure the House that he will make provision for future foreign policy debates in Government time over the coming period? Does he agree with me that although statements are very welcome, they are no substitute for a debate where all Members can get to the heart of the complexities of these issues?
	The Prime Minister confirmed yesterday that he wanted to go ahead with reintroducing relocation powers, despite the Deputy Prime Minister suggesting differently. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to clear up the confusion about Government policy by outlining when we can expect strengthened TPIMs—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—to be in place and what legislation he expects will be needed?
	NATO meets today in Wales at a time of increasing turmoil in many parts of the world. In these volatile times, the summit must address the urgent security concerns that have emerged in eastern Ukraine and agree an appropriate response in the face of the increasingly belligerent Russian leadership. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister will provide a statement to the House on Monday? Given the rapidly changing context in which NATO is now operating, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will make time available for the House to discuss these important matters?
	Today, the Government have finally decided to publish the Elliott report following the horsemeat scandal last year. The report was due in spring, and we are now in September. The food industry is the single largest manufacturing sector in the UK, so it is crucial that the Government show urgent leadership and get the response to this right. Does the Leader of the House agree with the report that the Government’s misguided decision to carve up the Food Standards Agency, splitting the responsibility for food safety and authenticity, created confusion, which was clearly highlighted in the horsemeat scandal? Will he also arrange for a statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so that she can set out the Government’s response to this report?
	I see that the Chief Whip is not in his place—yet again. Before the summer recess he lost his first vote, only three days into his new job. Yesterday, only three days into the new Session, he has already had to retreat before he lost another one. He was stuck in the toilet last time—I am not sure that I really want to know what his excuse is this time! Yesterday’s European Committee objected to the Government’s inadequate plans for protecting British ports, despite three panic-stricken last-minute Government amendments. The sector, which employs more than 100,000 people across the country, including many in my constituency, is under real pressure, but the Transport Secretary’s response has been muddled and weak. I understand that a European Commission document relating to the ports strategy has to be considered in this House by early October. Given that that means next week or not at all, will the Leader of the House explain why this has not been tabled for consideration in next week’s business—or will he just admit that the Government are all at sea?
	May I take this opportunity to welcome hon. Members back to the House after the summer recess? The Prime Minister seems to have enjoyed his holidays—we have all seen a few too many photos of him in Cornwall pretending to be in “Baywatch”. The problem with him is that he is less the Hoff and more the Toff.
	I have been researching British seaside destinations and I have a suggestion for the Prime Minister’s next break: the blue flag, popular, family resort of Clacton-on-Sea. The writ will soon be moved and the by-election will reportedly take place in Essex on 9 October, the Prime Minister’s birthday. We can just imagine the birthday party at Conservative central office: half the invite list will be at Nigel’s party down the road.
	Is it not the case that the Conservative party is becoming ungovernable? It has no strategy on Europe. The Prime Minister has lost an MP to UKIP. A Minister has resigned and nine of the MPs from the 2010 intake are just giving up. The MPs he has left are dialling B for
	Boris. What the Conservative party does not understand is that its chances of winning the next election are sinking faster than Boris island.

William Hague: The hon. Lady was right to start her questions by referring to some of the horrific events of recent days and the crimes against humanity that are being committed in Iraq and in Syria. The House’s united voice on the matter is very important, as was discussed at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. She has welcomed the holding of a broad foreign policy debate next week. That is an important response to the demand for such a debate. It is important, too, that regular statements are made. There is a need for both those things when there are so many crises in the world. I made perhaps more statements than any Foreign Secretary in history when I was Foreign Secretary. I know that my successor will also want to make regular statements on these huge issues. Whenever it is possible to have a debate as well, so that Members can discuss them in more detail, we will have one, including next week.
	On tackling extremism and bringing forward legislation, again the Prime Minister made the position clear at Prime Minister’s questions. We will introduce specific and targeted legislation to provide the police with a temporary power to seize a passport at the border. We are clear in principle that we need a targeted and discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the UK. We will work up proposals on that and discuss them on a cross-party basis. It is important to have as much cross-party unity on this as we possibly can.
	It is important to get that legislation right. Over centuries there has been a legitimate debate in this country on where the balance is to be struck between liberty and security. That arises every time there is a threat to our national security. The House of Commons has always had a variety of views on these matters, so we must make every effort to proceed on a cross-party basis. Consistent with acting with sufficient speed, we will try to get the legislation right. That means that it will not be introduced next week; we will be ready to do that at some stage after the conference recess.
	The hon. Lady asked whether there would be a statement by the Prime Minister on Monday following the NATO summit. There will be. The Prime Minister is very keen to do that and to inform the House after that summit. There will be time in Wednesday’s debate to discuss the situation in Ukraine.
	On the Elliott review, a written ministerial statement has been published today by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There will be a debate on food fraud on Monday on the Floor of the House. The Secretary of State has accepted all the recommendations giving top priority to the needs of consumers, improving laboratory testing capacity and capability, introducing new unannounced audit checks by the food industry and many other measures. They are set out in the written ministerial statement.
	The hon. Lady took the Chief Whip to task again, although I was a bit disappointed that it was the same joke about his being in the toilet as seven weeks ago. Recycling has its limits and we would like slightly more
	up-to-date—
	[Interruption.] 
	I am all in favour of recycling jokes, but I expect more from the hon. Lady. I am sure that she will be able to deliver that next week.
	I cannot go into the Prime Minister’s plans for his birthday, but certainly I and many of my hon. Friends will be visiting Clacton in the coming weeks. Our former hon. Friend Douglas Carswell explained in May that the Conservative party’s policy on Europe was 100% right. He may be the only person in British history to leave a political party because he was 100% in agreement with it. That is particularly striking as there are many people who sit in this House in their political parties perfectly happily who certainly do not agree 100% with their party’s policies; that is true in every party. This is no doubt something he will want to explain to the voters of Clacton, and it will be very interesting to see how he tries to do so.
	The shadow Leader of the House accused the Government, or the Conservative party, of having no strategy on Europe. That is a bit rich from a member of a party that was against a referendum before the European constitution came up, then in favour of one and announced one, then against one when it came to actually holding the referendum, then against one on the Lisbon treaty, then against our referendum Act of 2011, but now has accepted it into law, then toyed with the idea of being in favour of a referendum, and has now come out against it. There is absolutely no way we will take any lectures from the Opposition on strategy on Europe.
	I would only conclude by saying that after a summer recess in which we have seen strong figures on GDP growth in this country, our world economic ranking for competitiveness now go up four places from where it was left by the last Government on grounds of controlling the fiscal deficit, an excellent reduction in unemployment and a growth in employment figures, a major increase in car registration, and consumer confidence at its highest for a long time, it is rather revealing that there are no requests from those on the Opposition Benches to discuss the economy and the long-term economic plan of the Government.

George Young: The House will welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said: that there will be a statement from the Prime Minister on Monday on the NATO summit. Will he confirm that on Wednesday the general debate will run until 7 o’clock? After 7 o’clock, when we move on to the Backbench Business Committee debate, will there be a time limit or it will be open-ended?

William Hague: Yes, certainly the debate on foreign affairs and security will be able to run until 7 o’clock. That is a full day’s debate, and there are many, many issues that hon. and right hon. Members will wish to address, so it will last until 7 pm, provided that that time is taken up. I therefore envisage that the debate requested by the Backbench Business Committee on the governance of the House will take place after that, and between now and then we will bring forward a business of the House motion to facilitate that, and to establish an appropriate time limit on that debate.

Barry Sheerman: The Leader of the House is right in saying we have lots of statements in the House, and they are very useful. I am
	very pleased we are going to have a debate on international affairs this coming week, but there is one thing missing. There was a harrowing report to the House on child abuse in one town. We all know that that abuse covered the country, and that there is a much deeper and more worrying problem than any of us thought existed. May we have an early debate so we can look at this in its entirety and reach out to those children who have been abused, raped and put into prostitution and have had no recourse to justice?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue, and hon. Members across the House are extremely conscious of the importance of this. He will recall that the Home Secretary made a statement this week, and, of course, Ministers envisage that there will be a great deal of further discussion in this House about these matters. The Home Secretary has explained that she intends shortly to be able to appoint the chair of the overarching inquiry and then set out the terms of reference. I know she will want to keep the House updated on that. While it is clear that, given the range of matters the House needs to debate next week, I cannot offer a further debate next week on these matters, I have no doubt that over the coming months there will need to be many opportunities to discuss what has happened in Rotherham and may well be happening elsewhere. The Government, like all political parties and Members, are determined that all possible lessons will be learned.

William Cash: I was concerned that my right hon. Friend did not reply to the shadow Leader of the House on the question of the ports services regulation. The reason I raise this is that there is a grave issue of European scrutiny at stake here. The position is that the ports services regulation is opposed by the trade unions as well as by all 47 port authorities. The matter was referred to the Floor of the House by my European Scrutiny Committee, but the Government declined that request and referred it to a European Standing Committee, which imploded yesterday because documents were not made available to the Committee, and the Chairman rightly adjourned the Committee as a result. That was extremely unusual—indeed, it was almost unprecedented. There are grave scrutiny concerns involved in all this. The real question, when it comes down to it, is this: we have called again today for a debate on the Floor of the House, but the Leader of the House’s statement has made it clear that the Government have not made such a debate available. Furthermore, because of the timetabling, the real question is going to be about 8 October. Finally, I would simply say: may we have a debate on the Floor of the House on this matter? How can this regulation be stopped? That is the crucial question.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is better able than any other hon. or right hon. Member to conduct a debate with himself, which he both opens and closes.

William Hague: That is undoubtedly true, and my hon. Friend always closes with a conclusion that is forceful and that we can always see coming. He raises an important issue, and I know that the debate in Committee was adjourned because a point of order was raised over whether the appropriate documents had been provided
	to its members. The report of the European Scrutiny Committee will be taken seriously by Ministers. My hon. Friend has pointed out that an important policy issue is involved, and I will ensure that my ministerial colleagues have their attention fully drawn to the point that he has raised.

George Howarth: Will the Leader of the House find the time to debate the support that central Government provide to local government? This would enable us to discuss the problem that some of the areas of greatest need, such as Knowsley, are having the most money cut while some of the areas that have the least need, such as West Oxfordshire, are having lesser amounts cut or even, in some cases, having their grants increased. That simply is not fair. We have just been hearing about Rotherham, and it is about time the Government recognised that adult and children’s services will be cut as a result of the reductions in expenditure that local government is having to find.

William Hague: Local government across the country has had to become considerably more efficient in recent years, and local authorities have varied in their effectiveness and ability to bring that about. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there will be questions to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on Monday, which will provide an opportunity to raise these matters on the Floor of the House next week.

Simon Burns: The Leader of the House might be aware of a point of order that I raised yesterday. Will he make a statement to update the House on whether anything has happened regarding the letter sent to No. 10—or is it, like a cantankerous maiden aunt, floating around No. 10 with no one actually wanting to go anywhere near it?

William Hague: Things do not float around in No. 10; I am pleased to say that that is not the way No. 10 operates. The Prime Minister has received a letter this week from you, Mr Speaker—I am sure you will not mind my saying this—in which you asked for the appointment of Carol Mills to be delayed further until a clear way forward on the issue has been agreed. That is the current status of the letter, rather than any floating.

Pete Wishart: In exactly two weeks’ time, we will be voting in the Scottish independence referendum. Next week is the last opportunity that the House has to meet before this momentous and historic occasion, yet there is not one iota of referendum-related business in the agenda for next week. Does this House no longer care about the referendum, or has it looked at the opinion polls and the momentum that is gathering and decided that it just wants to give up?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman must know that Members across the House care passionately about this matter, but this is a decision being made by the people of Scotland. The debate is taking place in Scotland, among the people of Scotland and in the Scottish media. The Prime Minister pointed out yesterday how much the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. That is something about which nearly all of us in this House, with the exception of the nationalist
	parties, are clear. But if we were to debate these matters next week in the House of Commons, the hon. Gentleman would no doubt ask why we are debating them when the referendum campaign is taking place in Scotland. I appreciate that he needs to ask a question, but it was not a very logical one.

Alan Beith: I welcome the arrangements that the Leader of the House has announced to ensure that we have a foreign affairs debate, and that we also have a necessary debate after 7pm on what has been described as the way forward in the governance of the House. Can he say at this stage that the Government are not opposed to what the Backbench motion seeks to do?

William Hague: I will seek to speak in the debate and make my position clear, but let me stress that this is a matter for the House. Indeed you, Mr Speaker, have emphasised the importance of consent and general agreement in the House, so this is very much a matter for the House of Commons. It is important to facilitate such a debate. The Backbench Business Committee particularly asked for additional time, so that this matter could be debated without reducing the time available to discuss all the other matters that hon. Members are seeking to raise. We have gone to some lengths to provide that additional time, and that is the right role for me to play at the moment.

Andrew Miller: In the light of the well-informed debate on Monday on mitochondrial DNA, and the agreement between Front-Bench Members and a number of leading speakers on both sides of the House, when will the Government bring forward the necessary regulatory changes to enable the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to supervise work in this field?

William Hague: That was an important and well-attended debate. I know that many people across the country paid great attention to it and that there was much anticipation of it around the country. The Department of Health will have listened carefully to what was said. I cannot make any announcement at the moment about any proposals, but I will ensure that when they are ready, the hon. Gentleman will be well informed.

Robert Halfon: May we have a debate on university technical colleges so that we can see how Government policy is transforming skills and vocations right across the country? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Sir Charles Kao UTC in Harlow, which the Prime Minister visited when it was being built? It has just opened this month and will transform opportunities for young people in my constituency.

William Hague: I am pleased to offer my congratulations to everyone involved in the establishment of the Sir Charles Kao UTC in Harlow. We have now established 17 university technical colleges. I am sure that Harlow will enjoy the same benefits that are already being seen in other towns and cities. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for backing the UTC, and we look forward to the future successes of the students in Harlow, which will be partly due to his efforts.

Louise Ellman: This morning, the Community Security Trust has published its report showing record levels of anti-Semitic hate incidents. The British Jewish community feels under threat as anti-Zionism merges into anti-Semitism following disproportionate criticism of Israel’s defensive actions in Gaza. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss this very distressing and disturbing growing phenomenon?

William Hague: This is also a very important issue and the hon. Lady is quite right to draw attention to it. I cannot offer an additional debate in Government time at the moment, but of course these issues are related to some of the matters that we will discuss in Wednesday’s foreign policy debate. We should all be clear that whatever our views about the rights and wrongs of conflicts in the middle east, Israeli action in Gaza, attacks on Israel by Hamas from Gaza or the two-state solution that is necessary in the middle east conflict, it is utterly unacceptable to try to translate that into anti-Semitism in any form. In the United Kingdom, we should stand strongly against that and that is why, whatever our disagreements from time to time with the Government of Israel, we stand by the legitimacy of Israel and stand strongly against anti-Semitism in any form.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour to his new position. The publication of the Elliott review today is very welcome, and it makes some specific proposals. The general debate on Monday will discuss food fraud in broad terms, and we obviously want to congratulate the Government on accepting all the Elliott proposals, but we need to know the time scale and the specific proposals for when the food crime unit and national lab service will come into effect.

William Hague: I welcome my hon. Friend’s welcome for what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set out in accepting the recommendations of the Elliott report. As I said, that has been set out in a written ministerial statement but I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will wish to expand on the detail of the implementation in due course. This is the Government’s initial and very clear reaction, but of course the Ministers concerned will have to return to the issue and keep the House up to date on that.

Valerie Vaz: May we have an urgent debate on the universal Jobmatch website? My constituent, Wendy Perrins, was made redundant in June. She has applied for 29 jobs, some of which are duplicates and some of which have been posted before. Why should our constituents be sanctioned when the website is not fit for purpose and when people are desperately seeking jobs?

William Hague: I will draw that point to the attention of my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions. We had questions to that Department on Monday, of course, so there were opportunities to ask about these things then. However, there will be further opportunities and I will draw the hon. Lady’s point to the attention of my colleagues.

Peter Bone: At the last business questions, the Leader of the House said that a business of the House committee could not be introduced because there was not consensus. I went back and checked on that. All three main political parties committed to it in their manifestos and it is in that hallowed document, the coalition agreement. The Prime Minister made a speech saying that he wanted to have a business of the House committee. On Tuesday, this House gave leave for a Bill to be brought in to establish a business of the House committee, supported by senior parliamentarians on both sides of the House. Will the Leader of the House introduce such a Bill and, if not, will he explain where the consensus is not?

William Hague: It is wonderful to hear my hon. Friend cite the coalition agreement as a key document and I look forward to his doing so on many other occasions. He is a strong and consistent advocate in this regard, which I respect very much, including in the ten-minute rule Bill motion to which he spoke. He won leave to introduce his Bill earlier this week, but this is a matter on which a great deal of detail would need to be sorted out and that is where there is a lack of consensus. There would have to be wide agreement across the House including with the Government on the detail of how that would operate and I do not think that consensus exists at the moment.

Tom Blenkinsop: Sadly, this week ESCO in my constituency announced the closure of its foundry in Guisborough, with the loss of 65 employees. It is due to close in November and ESCO cited the current economic climate as the primary reason, and it has been operating at less than half capacity for a number of years. One statistic that is quite worrying is the fact that imported non-EU reinforced steel has risen from 4% in 2010 to 44% this year. That is a profound problem for the UK steel industry. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to help me assist those 65 employees in finding new jobs in the future?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to an important issue in his constituency. He will have a further opportunity to put his questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills next Thursday in the House, so there are opportunities to raise these matters then. I am sure Ministers will be happy to discuss the issue with him. In general, we are witnessing a strong rise in employment across the economy as a whole; that is not to say that there is growth in every business and every sector at the same time. If the Opposition would only stir themselves to call for a wide debate on the economy in one of their Opposition day debates—if they would summon up the courage to do so—it would be possible for Members like him to raise these points in the course of that debate.

Maria Miller: Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate and review of illegal tree-felling? A forest of some 500 trees was destroyed over the summer in Basingstoke, leaving my constituents shocked and fearful of illegal residential development on that site. Fines and criminal sanctions must be sufficient to deter such acts of pure environmental vandalism.

William Hague: I can very much understand my right hon. Friend raising that issue; it must be of enormous concern to people living in that area. She will gather from the business that I have announced that I cannot offer her a debate on that in the immediate future. However, the Backbench Business Committee has been allocated quite a lot of time, not only next week but in the weeks after the conference recess, and she may like to pursue the matter that way. It is certainly an important issue, which the Government will take a close interest in.

Debbie Abrahams: Further to my point of order on Monday, when will the Government be making a statement about the Oakley report into jobseeker’s allowance sanctions? Following the death of David Clapson, a diabetic ex-soldier who died after he was sanctioned and his JSA was stopped, will the Government finally commit to holding a comprehensive independent inquiry into all social security sanctions, as requested by his sister, Gill Thompson, and nearly 200,000 people?

William Hague: I am sure the hon. Lady knows that the Government did make a written statement on the Oakley review. That was made on the day that both the review and the Government response were published—22 July. I know that was the last day before the House rose, but if it had been published during the summer recess or delayed until September, I think hon. Members would have been unhappy about that. As I pointed out, on Monday Members were able to ask questions of the Department for Work and Pensions. I do not think any Member raised that issue with the Secretary of State then, but clearly there will be further parliamentary opportunities to do so.

Mark Pritchard: May we have a debate on process? As the United Kingdom rightly edges towards targeted air strikes in Iraq, and possibly Syria, would it not make sense to have a debate and a vote before the House rises, rather than possibly having to recall Parliament or keep the long-suffering people of Iraq and Syria suffering until 13 October?

William Hague: Next week there will be many opportunities for the House to discuss those matters. As I said, the Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday, following the NATO summit in Wales. In addition, there will be the wide-ranging debate on foreign affairs and security on Wednesday—a full day’s debate—so it will be possible to air those issues then.
	I think our conventions on the process of these matters are pretty well established and understood in the House. Indeed, where there is time to do so we have come to the House for permission—for support—for any plan to take military action, and my hon. Friend knows that no decision has been made about that, so the Government are not proposing to do that at the moment. But it is also clear that in an emergency, or to meet a treaty obligation, or to save life in a dramatic situation such as arose in Libya in 2011, it is possible for the Government to take action and then come to Parliament as soon as possible after that.

Angela Smith: The debate next Wednesday on international security should indeed be wide ranging, covering the middle
	east, Ukraine and north Africa, because of the NATO summit this weekend, but will the Leader of the House give an assurance that, as time goes on, each one of those troubled regions will get dedicated time for debate, whenever events dictate that that should be the case?

William Hague: There are only so many parliamentary days between now and Dissolution next year, as the hon. Lady very well understands, but the Government will make every effort to ensure that foreign affairs, at a time of such turbulence and crisis, can be fully debated and that the Government make regular statements. It is also open to the Backbench Business Committee to bring forward, as it sometimes does, foreign policy issues for debate. It is important to use that channel as well, because there will not be enough Government days on the Floor of the House to debate every foreign policy issue on a very regular basis—but we will do our best.

Rob Wilson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on the role of the head-hunters in the appointment of Carol Mills? There is great concern across the House that either the head-hunters failed to carry out due diligence and report to the panel, or the information reported was ignored by the panel. I think the House is owed a full explanation of what went on and what went wrong.

William Hague: As I have announced, there will be a debate, requested by the Backbench Business Committee, on governance of the House next Wednesday. In addition, questions can be put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who answers for the House of Commons Commission. The Commission will meet next Monday; I will attend that meeting—the first such meeting that I will have attended as Leader of the House—and of course I will draw the Commission’s attention to points raised on the Floor of the House.

Kevin Brennan: May we debate the Welsh language? The Leader of the House will have seen the American ambassador’s effort to speak Welsh on YouTube ahead of the NATO summit in Wales, and President Obama spoke Welsh this morning when he spoke to schoolchildren in Wales—I may say his effort was better than that of the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor as Secretary of State for Wales. Given the right hon. Gentleman’s close connections to Wales, would he care to welcome the summit to Wales in the language of heaven?

William Hague: I strongly welcome the summit to Wales. Before I stepped down as Foreign Secretary, I regularly explained to NATO Foreign Ministers the wonders and attractions of Wales, including a fair bit about the language. I shall be going there myself in a couple of hours, to host the meeting on preventing sexual violence in conflict—a side meeting during the NATO summit—so I will add to that warm welcome. I do not think we need to debate the Welsh language next week. Indeed, in my household, debating the Welsh language is not a very
	good idea; adopting the Welsh language is a good idea, and I strongly welcome the efforts of President Obama and many others to do so.

David Nuttall: May we have a statement on progress made on the introduction of the new eligibility rules for community amateur sports clubs? The Government’s intention to simplify the procedure is welcome; the problem is that the process has taken so long that clubs such as Lowes Park golf club in my constituency are suffering, because new applications are being held up, pending the finalisation of the new rules.

William Hague: It may help my hon. Friend if I explain that if a club whose application is currently on hold because it does not meet the current eligibility conditions to be a community amateur sports club is found to meet the new requirements for registration, or only has to make minor changes, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be able to backdate registration from the beginning of the accounting period in which the club made its application. I hope that is clear. For registration to be backdated, the club will need to meet all the other conditions of the scheme from the date of its application.

Kerry McCarthy: Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister about the worrying rise in child malnutrition and the links to food poverty, which have been identified by a number of reports. He avoided answering the question, as I think he has whenever I have asked him about food poverty and food banks. May we have an urgent debate on the public health consequences of people not being able to afford to feed their family and what the public health response should be?

William Hague: Again, I cannot offer an additional debate next week. The Opposition regularly have time available to them to bring forward these issues. The hon. Lady says that the Prime Minister did not answer the question, but he did point out that far fewer people are in relative poverty now than there were at the time of the last general election, including 300,000 fewer children in relative poverty than in 2010. Also, very importantly, there are now 50,000 fewer households stuck in the trap of never having worked. This is how we are addressing poverty, and we are doing so a lot more successfully than the previous Labour Government.

Andrew Bridgen: Snibston discovery park and museum in my constituency is currently under threat of closure by Leicestershire county council, despite being a popular local attraction that receives five-star reviews from people who have recently visited it. A number of the friends and supporters of Snibston wish to take over the running of this attraction as an independent trust. May we have a debate on what help and support the Government can give to community, voluntary and independent groups seeking to take over the running of council-held assets?

William Hague: Although I cannot offer an additional debate at the moment, the Government strongly support this. As my hon. Friend knows, we have introduced a community right to bid to give communities a better chance to buy local assets that they cherish. He will like to know that so far 1,500 assets around the country
	have been listed as assets of community value. We are providing £19 million-worth of support for communities to help them to utilise this right to bid. While not knowing the local issues regarding this very important facility, I strongly encourage all those involved to look at how the Government’s approach can benefit it.

Mary Glindon: As the Leader of the House is patron of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign’s Yorkshire and Humber Muscle Group and has met members of that group, I am sure he will take an interest in the gaps in neuro-muscular services across the whole of England and the urgent need to improve them. Will he therefore set aside time for a debate on the important issue of delivering the necessary standard of neuro-muscular services across the whole country?

William Hague: I am a strong supporter of the muscular dystrophy group in Yorkshire, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning it. Clearly, she is a very strong campaigner on these important issues as well. I cannot announce any debate additional to those I have already announced for next week, but I will draw the attention of my colleagues in the Department of Health to what she has said and ensure that they write to her about it.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: We are now nearing the end of the tourism season. As the Leader of the House is aware, Devon, Cornwall and Somerset had a very difficult start to the tourism year. One of the things that went badly wrong is that we were not able to get the message out that very little of Devon, Cornwall and Somerset was underwater and the majority was fine, so the tourists did not come because they felt under threat. We must have a better mechanism, and may we have time to discuss it?

William Hague: Tourism is a very important part of the economy in Devon and Cornwall. In recent weeks there have been some very good advertisements for it, including the Prime Minister himself being in Cornwall—as well as many other Members of the House, I am sure. My hon. Friend makes this important point very clearly and eloquently. I think it has been a good year for tourism in general so far across the UK, and it is important that all parts of the UK are able to share in that. Again, while I cannot offer a debate in Government time at the moment, there will be other ways, including Adjournment debates and questions, in which he can continue to pursue this, and our colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will listen carefully to what he says.

Ian Lucas: The Leader of the House is aware of the close links that exist between Wales and the Kingdom of Lesotho. Last week, there was an attempted military coup in Lesotho leading to its Prime Minister fleeing the country. Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Foreign Office, because there is a lot of concern in Wales about what is happening in Lesotho, where information is very difficult to secure? May we have a written ministerial statement from the Foreign Office about the latest position?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are important and long-standing links between Wales and Lesotho. I was very concerned, as other
	members of the Government and Members of the House will have been, about last week’s events. We are strong supporters of constitutional democracy and good governance around Africa, and for a long time Lesotho has been able to claim to be part of that. It is very important that that is upheld and all of us who are friends of that country will want to see that happen. I will certainly pass on to my colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the hon. Gentleman’s request for a written statement on these matters.

Mark Menzies: I congratulate the Leader of the House on his work on preventing sexual violence in conflict. NATO leaders are meeting this week, so will my right hon. Friend, as the Prime Minister’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict, assure me that the terrible crime of rape being committed by ISIL will be raised at the NATO conference and that this House can have a debate on the issue?

William Hague: My hon. Friend raises an immensely important issue, which is a part of the conflict in Iraq and Syria that has not received enough attention so far. Among the crimes against humanity being committed by terrorists associated with ISIL is the enslavement and abuse of women and girls, including murder. I will certainly discuss the issue. I mentioned earlier that this afternoon I will host a side meeting at the NATO summit with the Foreign Ministers of Australia, Jordan and Croatia and the new European Union High Representative on the specific issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict. I know that my colleagues will also want to address it in future debates and statements.

John Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow a debate in Government time on policing during election and referendum campaigning and voting? The intimidation by the yes campaign north of the border is unlike anything I have ever seen in my time in politics. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) was attacked not only when he was speaking, but when he was protecting an elderly lady. Freedom of speech is being attacked. Given next year’s general election and a possible referendum, when the stakes will be high, we need to look at the issue again and make sure that intimidation—[Interruption.] I can hear some coming from beside me now. It happens all the time where I come from and we need to make sure that it does not happen.

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman raises a disturbing and important point. He is right to point out the importance of free speech, something that all of us in all parties have always been very proud of in the United Kingdom: in an election or referendum campaign, whatever our disagreements, we listen to each other. That is one of the great qualities of the UK compared with many other countries in the world. It is something we should always be proud to uphold. It is disgraceful to see Members of this House—and, indeed, anyone else— heckled and attempts made to drive them out of giving their views on the referendum, so the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need to uphold free speech.

Jason McCartney: May we have a debate on the scourge of unsolicited automated nuisance phone calls, which have been plaguing my constituents throughout the summer? At best, they are an annoyance; at worst, they are extremely distressing for the elderly, the vulnerable and the isolated. I know that the Government have been taking action on this, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is now time for an outright ban on these automated nuisance phone calls?

William Hague: My hon. Friend speaks for many people, including hon. Members, on this issue. The Government are taking measures to address the problem. The “Nuisance Calls Action Plan” was published on 30 March. Over the past two years, regulators have issued penalties totalling nearly £2 million to companies for breaching their rules, and further work is under way to see what more can be done to tackle the issue, as set out in the action plan, so I encourage my hon. Friend to make further representations to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Bob Blackman: Over the summer, council officers in my constituency have routinely been touting libraries and other public buildings for sale to private organisations, even before the local authority has made decisions over their future. Our libraries in Harrow are certainly community hubs and essential for students to do research, for children to do their homework and for the elderly to use as a normal resource. May we have a debate in Government time on the future of Britain’s libraries as community hubs for the benefit of the whole community rather than the favoured few?

William Hague: Libraries are indeed very important community hubs. There is no time for a debate next week, but my hon. Friend will have a further opportunity to raise the matter on the Floor of the House during Department for Communities and Local Government questions on Monday.

Julian Smith: Following the horrors contained in the Jay report, many people across Yorkshire just cannot believe that Rotherham council has today retained control of children’s services. May we have an urgent debate on how quickly the Government can move in and have the Department for Education install an independent trust to look after children in Rotherham?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right that there is huge concern across the whole of Yorkshire; I can confirm that as a Yorkshire Member of Parliament and, indeed, as someone who was born in Rotherham. As I indicated earlier, the House will need to return to the matter on many occasions. It is because of such cases that the Home Secretary is establishing an independent panel inquiry. There is the work of the Home Office-led national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people. There have also been other announcements concerning Rotherham, for example on urgent Ofsted inspections, so all the Ministers concerned will give urgent and continuing attention to the issue and the House will be able to return to it in due course.

Jeremy Lefroy: Last week I had the honour of visiting the home of my constituents Mr and Mrs Thomas to hear from them about their daughter
	Laura, a wonderful girl who was tragically killed by a truck whose driver was using a mobile phone at the time. May we have a debate not only on the sentences available for such crimes, which seem far too short, but on how we can join Mrs Thomas, her husband and others who want to talk in schools and elsewhere about the dangers of using mobile devices while driving?

William Hague: That is a heartbreaking case, and of course it happens all too often in other parts of the country as well. It is important that people understand the great dangers of using mobile phones while driving, and the kind of publicity that my hon. Friend is creating helps raise awareness. On the question of penalties, I will draw what he has said to the attention of hon. Friends in the Ministry of Justice.

Oliver Colvile: Earlier this year, as my right hon. Friend knows, the railway line at Dawlish was swept away, completely cutting off Plymouth, west Devon and Cornwall from the rest of the country’s rail network. Earlier this summer, Network Rail published a report suggesting five alternative routes. Will my right hon. Friend find time either for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement, or for us to have a proper debate on the matter, because it is incredibly important to the south-west and to my constituents?

William Hague: That issue is of massive importance to my hon. Friend’s constituents. As he has said, Network Rail’s study considers alternative options for providing a long-term, resilient route west of Exeter, including re-opening alignments, making the existing route more resilient and maintaining rail connectivity to coastal communities. The Secretary of State will announce his findings on the study shortly, so I ask my hon. Friend to await that announcement.

Stuart Andrew: As a proud Yorkshireman, my right hon. Friend will no doubt have used Leeds Bradford airport on many occasions and noticed how poorly served it is with surface access, compared with other UK international airports. Given that a connectivity study is currently under way, may we have a debate so that we can argue that a new rail link would offer the best solution not only for my constituents, but for passengers using the airport?

William Hague: As a proud Yorkshireman, I do indeed use Leeds Bradford airport. However, it has not taken me to identify the problem. As my hon. Friend well knows, the area was identified last year as one of the six long-standing road congestion hot spots. The Department for Transport was asked to take forward a study into connectivity to Leeds Bradford international airport. It awarded a contract to a consortium to examine the issue in March this year. The consortium will consider connectivity for public and private transport to see what issues need to be addressed now and in the future. The Government will have to look at the conclusions of that report and announce a way forward. This is an issue that cannot be ignored in the Leeds-Bradford area.

Philip Hollobone: Residents in the Kettering constituency have been horrified to see the latest scenes of serious disorder in Calais, during which 250 migrants tried to storm a number of ferries
	to make their way illegally to this country. That comes in the same week in which the Home Office has admitted that it has lost the contact details of 175,000 illegal immigrants who are already here. Under the Dublin convention, we have the ability to send asylum seekers back to the first country through which they entered the European Union. That was confirmed to me by the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House on 28 April. I then tabled a parliamentary question, which showed that last year we sent back only 757 such migrants. May we have an urgent statement from the Home Office and a debate on the Floor of the House about how we can get back control of our borders?

William Hague: My hon. Friend knows the importance that the Home Secretary attaches to the thorough policing of our borders and the additional efforts that the Government have made. He can be absolutely sure that we will continue to take every possible action. Increasing action has been taken over the past few years to tighten up on these matters. We are concerned about the issues that have been raised in Calais. The Government are in close touch with the French Government about those matters. We will continue to protect our borders, reduce immigration and, in particular, tackle illegal immigration. I will certainly draw the attention of my Home Office colleagues to what he has said today.

Points of Order

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following our exchange of pleasantries in points of order yesterday, a number of members of the panel have said to me that Saxton Bampfylde was prevented from coming and speaking to the panel and giving information about Carol Mills. I wonder whether, under those circumstances, you might wish to put the record straight so that the House is not misled. May I ask a further question? Would you be prepared to lift any threat of litigation on Saxton Bampfylde with regard to its confidentiality agreement to enable it to speak freely about this subject publicly?

Mr Speaker: In respect of the second point, that is not something to which I have given any thought, and it is a point upon which it would be prudent and sensible to take advice. In respect of the first point that the hon. Gentleman raised, let me reiterate to him that I believe him to be incorrect. The panel, of which I was chair, was briefed about all the applicants for the post of Clerk and chief executive. He is quite wrong to say that there was prevention of Saxton Bampfylde giving information to the panel. The panel made a judgment on the material with which it was provided, including a piece of information that was provided to it on the occasion of the second set of interviews. The panel made its own judgment on the basis of that information and saw no need for a meeting, as, I think, the hon. Gentleman has in mind. There is no question of prevention. The panel made its own judgment and that was perfectly proper.
	I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman, who was courteous enough to raise another point with me yesterday, what I said in response to him then: namely, that the individual whose name he bandies around in the House—Carol Mills—was indeed on the original list of proposed interviewees. He put it to me that she had not been. I told him that she had been. I have one slight advantage of him in this matter, which is that I was there and I do know, whereas he was not there and he does not. We will leave it there.

Michael Fabricant: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: No, no. There is nothing further to that point of order. [Interruption.] Order. I simply say, with all due courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure is sensitive to the interests and wishes of the House as a whole and to its desire to get on with Back-Bench business, that he has raised his point of order, that I have answered it and that there is nothing further to it. Whatever he thinks, I hope that he will be prepared to observe the normal courtesies that obtain in the House of Commons. That is the end of the matter for today.

Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Is the point of order on a separate and unrelated matter?

Simon Burns: From that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about the head-hunters? Yes, it is.

Mr Speaker: Fair enough.

Simon Burns: Mr Speaker, given your knowledge, which you have just explained to my hon. Friend, would you be kind enough to tell the House why you and/or the Commission felt that, unlike for the previous two panels that considered a Clerk of the House, the Deputy Speaker—the Chairman of Ways and Means—should not be on the panel but should be replaced by another right hon. Member who, in their role as the Chair of a Select Committee that governs the scrutiny of finance, had a potential conflict of interest?

Mr Speaker: I am very happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman, and I am extremely grateful to him for raising this point. There are two responses to him. The first is that in the selection of panels that make judgments of this kind, it is perfectly normal practice to vary the membership from one instance to another. There is nothing disorderly, irregular or particularly surprising about that, and I am sorry if he thinks that there is.
	Secondly, I say to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I recall raising the point before about an alleged or perceived conflict of interest in respect of the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on account of her chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee, that I thought when he raised the point before it was a poor point, and it has not improved with time. There is no conflict of interest at all. I also say to the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure would wish to be consistent in what I will describe as his thesis, that if he wishes to pursue that line of argument, which I believe to be erroneous, he would presumably apply it also to the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), in front of whose Committee the Clerk can periodically appear. He did not make that point about the right hon. Gentleman—rightly, because he would have been wrong to do so, and he is similarly wrong to keep making that point in respect of the right hon. Member for Barking.
	I think the House will agree that I have set out the matters with crystal clarity, and I have done so a number
	of times. I would hope that, having had the point made to them a number of times, people would see it and acknowledge its veracity.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that modest pauses seem to be the order of the day, can we have a modest pause in bogus points of order made not, as is usually the case—[Interruption.] I did not heckle my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), and I will thank him not to heckle me—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I simply say to the hon. Member for Lichfield: try showing some basic courtesy and manners of a kind that people who attend to our proceedings would wish to hear. He made his point, and it was decisively dealt with by the Chair. I hope he will afford the courtesy to the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) to raise his point of order without interruption.

Julian Lewis: Inasmuch as people who raise bogus points of order seek to shout me down, I shall just continue to make my points that much more clearly.
	A modest pause in bogus points of order would be appreciated, given that they are emanating not from people who seem concerned about the wider issue but from people who are rather more concerned to damage the particular occupant of the Chair on any issue that takes their fancy.
	May I instead, within the rules of order, ask whether it is possible to set on the record my pleasure, and I hope that of the whole House, at the announcement on the parliamentary website that our late and much missed friend Paul Goggins is to have a memorial prize instituted in his name by the all-party group on poverty and the Webb Memorial Trust? I hope that hon. Members will alert their constituents to this fine memorial to a very fine individual, who is much missed by all of us.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman in particular for what he has just said about the late Paul Goggins, which I think will command universal assent in the House. He was a remarkable man who pursued his politics on the basis of the issues, not on the basis of personalities.

Backbench Business

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

[Relevant documents: Seventh report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2012-13, on dog control and welfare, HC 575, and the Government response, HC 1092]

Robert Flello: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the e-petition relating to the sale of young puppies and kittens; notes that puppies produced at large-scale commercial breeding establishments, known as puppy farms, and irresponsibly-bred kittens are separated from their mothers too early and often transported long distances, and as a result often suffer serious life-threatening problems including impaired immune systems, poor socialisation, infectious diseases and shorter life spans; calls on the Government to review existing legislation to ensure that it is consistent with its own guidance that prospective owners should always see the puppy or kitten with its mother, and to ban the sale of puppies and kittens from retail centres such as pet shops, garden centres or puppy supermarkets; further notes the support of the Blue Cross, Dog Rescue Federation, Dogs Advisory Council, Dogs Trust, The Kennel Club, RSPCA and others for such a ban; and further calls on the Government and welfare organisations to work together to raise awareness among the public about choosing a dog responsibly from only ethical breeders or by adoption from legitimate rescue organisations, and to consider further steps to end the cruel practice of irresponsible and unethical breeding of puppies and kittens in the UK.
	I am delighted to initiate today’s debate on an issue that the British public feel very strongly about. More than 110,000 people have called for a ban on the sale of young puppies and kittens without their mother being present, and although I cannot cover all the many issues surrounding this topic—I wish to leave some for colleagues on both sides of the Chamber—I hope at least to explain why so many people believe this issue to be so important.
	I thank everybody involved in the Pup Aid campaign, in particular Marc “The Vet” Abraham, Stuart Vernon, Rebecca Weller, the team at Bellenden, Julia Carr at Canine Action UK, Tim Wass, Nicola Howell in my office, CARIAD and Diesel. I am also grateful for the backing of Blue Cross, Dog Rescue Federation, the Dog Advisory Council, Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Wood Green Animal Shelter, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. [Interruption.] I hear mutters from the Benches beside me at the mention of the word “Diesel”, but—I think this illustrates the issue—until I actually saw the problem for myself, I was oblivious to it. That lies at the heart of the issue: people are caring, considerate, loving individuals, but unfortunately they are oblivious to the problem.

Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the first instance if someone wants to get a dog they should seek a rescue animal? If they really want to get a puppy, they should not go to a pet shop but should seek advice on reputable dealers with puppies.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I can now delete exactly that line from my speech. I could not have put it any better because that is exactly how I put it in my speech.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Robert Flello: I will work from left to right.

Matthew Offord: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that the rise of the internet has led us to people buying puppies and kittens online, which are certainly being transported around the country? That is where the problem lies and we need greater regulation.

Robert Flello: I do not think that is the only problem. As I will go on to say, that is one of the problems, but not one I am seeking to address today.

Mark Pritchard: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for his long-standing contribution to animal welfare in the United Kingdom and throughout the world. Does he agree that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs needs to do far more than it currently does to get together local authorities, pet shop owners, the Dogs Trust and all the charities that he mentioned, so that we can have a collaborative, credible, realistic and achievable outcome to what he wants, rather than just more words from DEFRA?

Robert Flello: Indeed, we do not just want warm words from DEFRA; we need some action.

Jake Berry: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. The motion calls for a toughening of Government laws in this area. Does he agree that we need publicity to be aimed at those looking to get a puppy or a kitten, to link to responsible breeders? For my dog we approached the head of Standard Poodle Rescue, which is based in my constituency in Rossendale. She interviewed me and my wife three times before she would let us walk out with a puppy. Working with responsible breeders must be publicised, as well as the Government tightening legislation.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because, absolutely, this is about ensuring not only that the dog is suitable for the family, but that the family is suitable for the dog. That is important.

Michael Fabricant: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman, who of course is from Staffordshire, has secured this debate. It might seem an odd comparison, but we have been very conscious recently of baby Ashya’s separation from his parents in Spain. Is not the crux of this issue the separation of young puppies and kittens from their parents at such an early age? Is not that the cruel element?

Robert Flello: It is certainly one of the cruel elements, but as I will elaborate, there are many other cruel elements.

Bill Wiggin: It is extremely important after this debate that we get it right, but I am concerned that good people whose bitches have puppies are not demonised like those who exploit puppy trading
	and abuse the good nature of people who want a dog. Going to a reputable person is probably where the problem lies.

Robert Flello: Going to a reputable person is actually part of the solution. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), a responsible, decent breeder who wants to ensure that the right person gets the dog will have invested a lot of time and money into raising those puppies, and they are being undercut by unscrupulous breeders who care nothing for the animals.

Zac Goldsmith: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue to the House. It matters greatly to the huge number of my constituents who have written in about it. As mentioned, local authorities have powers that they are often reluctant to use and which perhaps they do not even know they have, but this is not just about extending the licensing regime. The regime itself must be flawed, given that there are plenty of breeders whose standards do not meet even the first rung of the ladder, but who nevertheless have licences. The quality of the standard itself also needs to be addressed.

Robert Flello: The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Robert Flello: I will not take any more interventions for a moment. I want to make some progress—I am only on the second page of my speech—but I will take further interventions later.
	We consider ourselves a nation of animal lovers, where a dog is a man’s best friend and a pet cat or dog is part of the family, but every day puppies and kittens are bought from pet shops and garden centres, become ill and all too frequently die as a result of the supply chain from irresponsible breeder to pet shop. I cannot think that a nation of animal lovers would allow this to continue. Are we at risk of becoming a nation of disposable pets?
	Those behind today’s campaign want to end the cruel and unnecessary practice of puppy farming. We want to work with the Government to find a solution that improves the welfare of puppies and kittens as well as protecting the animals’ mothers and, importantly, their prospective owners. Tackling the supply side is difficult, but we can tackle the demand side by looking at where the animals are sold—the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) touched on this. There are three main routes: the internet, the private dealer and retail outlets.
	In time, we need to address the first two, which will be hard, but there is already strong agreement on tackling the third route—high street premises and pet shops, garden centres and dog supermarkets, such as the one in Salford. Puppies and kittens are housed and sold without their mothers, and the presence of such retail outlets encourages impulsive buying, irresponsible breeding and the commoditisation of animals, as well as too often leaving prospective owners with the burden of the life-threatening health and behavioural problems associated
	with pet shop puppies. The Government could have an immediate effect, without excessive enforcement costs, by banning the sale of puppies and kittens on high street premises.
	Puppy farming, from which third party dealers get most of their puppies and kittens, is the mass, commercial production of puppies for profit and is almost always done without thought for the health, welfare or quality of life of the puppy and its parents—I will refer a lot to puppies, but I mean puppies and kittens. I am doing it for brevity. Very often, puppies are separated from their mothers before the puppy is even four weeks old, usually unvaccinated and insufficiently socialised, and sent long distances across the country, and increasingly across the continent, before being sold.
	Despite the Dogs Trust survey showing that 95% of the British public say they would never buy from a puppy farmer, it is clear that many thousands of people have done exactly that each year, without realising it. They simply do not know where the third-party dealer gets the stock from. The breeding dogs are often kept in horrific conditions, with insufficient time given to heal between litters. They are rarely screened for genetic conditions so can pass on problems such as the agonising hip dysplasia or heart disease. Indeed, it is hardly in the interest of these volume breeders to produce animals that will live long lives. When the bitch is no longer able to breed, she is either killed or abandoned, and it is only the lucky ones that find themselves in rehoming animal rescue centres.
	This issue is not just about animal welfare, important though that is. Failing to tackle the sale of puppies from third-party dealers leaves potential dog owners exposed. They will be unaware of the puppy’s background and unable to see the puppy interacting with its mother. This interaction is vital, as it can help assess the mother’s temperament and what it might indicate about the puppy, including the risk of aggressive behaviour and serious temperament problems in later life, as well as the health ramifications of the environment in which the puppy was bred. The owners are left to foot the bill, with treatments for the often fatal parvovirus, for example, which is found in at least one in five dogs bought from a pet shop, costing up to £3,000 to treat. Ethical breeders that fulfil their responsibilities will have invested money and effort, and want to ensure that all their puppies are sold to appropriate homes.

Heather Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is gracious in giving way and I congratulate him on getting the agreement of the Backbench Business Committee for today’s debate. He talks about licensing, and I wholeheartedly support the spirit behind the motion, but MPs should be made aware of the great work done by local councils, such as my South Derbyshire district council, as licensing authorities. They are very good at checking and publicising enforcement issues so that they are well known locally. As MPs, we can all do more to help our local councils with their enforcement powers.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. There are indeed some very good local authorities, but even with the best local authorities, a high street pet shop is not the place to buy a puppy.

Alec Shelbrooke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. On his point about animals being used purely to farm puppies, I am sure he will have been to establishments like Battersea dogs home. It is worth while people visiting this home to see bitches that have been over-puppified and the enormous suffering they go through, with hugely expanded nipples. This ongoing suffering graphically brings home what it means for the mother dog as well as for the puppies.

Robert Flello: The hon. Gentleman is right that the treatment of these breeding bitches is unbelievably cruel. It is the lucky ones who get themselves to places such as Battersea.

Caroline Lucas: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I congratulate, too, Marc the Vet who comes from my home city of Brighton and Hove and has done so much on this agenda. Local authorities do very good work, but they are under enormous pressure in respect of their budgets. Does that not make it even more important to ensure that we take national action on the issue? The Government’s own advice is that people should not buy a pup without seeing the mother. If that is their advice, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that they should now act on it?

Robert Flello: In a word, yes.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for the clear terms in which he is putting his argument. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a good point in her intervention. Is it not important that local authorities are given not only the powers to regulate this trade properly, but the resources to ensure that they are able to do so?

Robert Flello: Resources are absolutely an issue for local authorities, but the strategy I am outlining will help without requiring additional resources—it simply says that a high street pet shop cannot sell kittens or puppies.

Alison Seabeck: Hundreds of my constituents are grateful for today’s debate, so I thank my hon. Friend for securing it. He mentioned the temperaments of puppies and their mothers. Many breeders, particularly of Staffordshire Bull-type dogs, will deliberately remove the puppies sooner in order to instil in them a temperament to suit the purpose they have for them. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is abhorrent?

Robert Flello: This shows the danger in trying to make a very short speech, because a speech on this issue could easily cover several hours. However, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.

Derek Twigg: rose—

Guy Opperman: rose—

Robert Flello: I will come to the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman); I am working my way round to him.

Derek Twigg: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. Many constituents have contacted me about this issue. I would like to see more regulation, but I was struck by one thing when listening to him: is one problem the fact that we are just not getting the information out to people so that they can understand what the situation is and we can prevent this from happening in the first place?

Robert Flello: Information is important, but someone may have the best information in the world and yet happen to be buying a container of goldfish food from the local pet shop with their family and see a cute puppy or a cute kitten—that is when a problem arises and there is an impulse purchase. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point. I will now take the intervention by the hon. Member for Hexham, but I am not going to take further interventions for a short while after that so that I can make some progress.

Guy Opperman: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I congratulate him on securing this debate and support the motion, on behalf of the many constituents who have contacted me. May I make a simple point? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has gone through the process of traceability for cattle, sheep and other animals, so surely the way forward must ultimately be a register of and traceability for cats and dogs.

Robert Flello: I would certainly like to see more work done on the compulsory microchipping that is going to come in; I would like us to have a proper database rather than just something that floats out into the ether, never gets updated and will just continue to grow and not be used properly. I am hoping that the Minister is listening carefully and will take the message back to DEFRA that the chip is a good thing but the database behind it is the important one.
	Let me return to the issue of high street pet shops. The only place most of them can source their puppies and kittens from has to be breeders that put minimal effort into breeding and rearing; there is a “pile ’em high” mentality. In addition to domestic operations, there is a rapidly growing trend of selling puppies brought into the UK from overseas breeders. We hear of breeders in the Irish Republic with 1,000 breeding bitches, which dwarfs the figure for even some of the Welsh breeders—I am sad to say that as I am sitting alongside my Welsh colleagues—who have more than 300. Although regulations are in place to address the import of cats and dogs, I know from my own experience this summer how very easily the pets passport system could be evaded.
	I also know from meeting Eurotunnel and ferry companies that they are concerned about the situation and are unhappy that they are, in effect, policing something they do not have the training for and that this is not properly resourced. It simply does not work. Ultimately, the retail end of this chain drives it, with up to 100 high street pet shops in England licensed to sell puppies or kittens on their premises. That is responsible for the
	pain and misery of thousands of animals. Although the number of pet shops selling puppies and kittens in the UK is relatively small, there are no signs of a downward trend. My intention, with this motion, is not to vilify pet shops per se, but in almost every case where they sell puppies and kittens they simply cannot meet the specific needs required in this developmental golden period for puppies, in which puppies learn their future emotional template, in order to exhibit normal behaviour patterns and safely adjust to family life. In addition, there are all the health implications to consider.
	Clear patterns have been established between early experiences and the development of aggression in dogs. A US study, for example, found that puppies obtained from pet shops were three times more likely to display aggression directed at their owner, and almost twice as likely to show aggression to other dogs they did not know, compared with dogs obtained from a small responsible breeder. By tackling the sale of puppies and kittens in pet shops we can remove the most impulsive means of purchasing, giving prospective owners the chance to research ownership and everything that goes with it. We can protect these prospective owners from the health and behavioural problems associated with pet shop puppies and kittens. We can also take a big step towards curbing irresponsible breeding practices and over-production of puppies and kittens.

Julie Hilling: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. As he will know, since the very sad death of Jade Lomas Anderson in my constituency I have done a great deal of work on this issue. Does he agree that we have to continue to talk about the 200,000 people who are seriously injured each year, the 6,000 who are hospitalised and the number of people who are dying because we are not looking after dogs from birth and through their training? Dog welfare is indeed at the heart of this, but it is also about protecting our communities.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and commend her for the work she has done on the issue. As ever, my thoughts are with the families of all those who have been affected by aggressive dogs, but, as surveys show, people buying from a pet shop are much more at risk. Do not take that risk.

Richard Harrington: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution in securing the debate and for everything that he has said. I fully support the regulation of the supply chain in the way he has described, but we as Members of Parliament can help to educate the purchasing public to be aware of the questions to ask in stores. If the demand were not there and people were buying from reputable breeders, the issue would disappear.

Robert Flello: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We want action to be taken, but if we can send one message from today’s debate, it is: always ask, “Where’s mum?”

Ian Lucas: Further to the previous intervention, one role that Members of Parliament can play is to promote cat and dog rescue institutions in
	their constituencies, so that people know they do not have to go to pet shops. Voluntary organisations will provide perfectly good and loving pets for most people.

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend makes his point and I will just say again, yes, I agree. It could not be simpler: all prospective dog owners should first consider adopting from a reputable rescue shelter. If they specifically want a puppy, it should be sourced from a responsible breeder where puppy and mother will always be seen interacting together.
	We believe that powers are already in place to tackle the issue but such is the volume of often old legislation that there is a need for clarification to ensure that loopholes cannot be exploited. The Pet Animals Act 1951 does not require pet shop owners to highlight the provenance of their animals and states only that the local authority “may” inspect a premises. In financially constrained times, it is hardly surprising that such inspections are not a priority.
	The Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 requires third-party dealers selling puppies from licensed breeders to sell them with identification badges or tags, but because the 1999 Act does not form part of the pet shop licence conditions, it is generally not enforced. The 1999 Act enables breeders to sell puppies younger than eight weeks to a third-party dealer. That is beneficial for the breeder, who does not incur the costs of inoculating or caring for the animal, and for the dealer, who pays less for the dog. It certainly is not in the interests of the animal or its potential owner. The Act even provides a bit of a get out of jail free card, saying that as long as reasonable precautions are taken, an offence is not committed.
	The Animal Welfare Act 2006 largely has not been used, nor has the secondary legislation in place to make it effective. Section 14 of the Act refers to codes of practice and guidance, but there is no liability if they are not observed. I will come back to the Act, which was enabling legislation. Again, we want the Government to “switch it on”—to make it work. The entire system desperately needs overhauling. but in the meantime one clear route to market for the puppy farms can be shut down. We can take a big step towards that today.
	The 1951 Act states that a local authority shall have
	“discretion to withhold a licence on other grounds”.
	The former Minister of State at DEFRA, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), stated in a written answer:
	“Conditions can be placed on individual pet shop licences restricting the animals that can be sold.” —[Official Report, 2 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 121W.]
	That point, however, is contested. We would like the current Minister to clarify on the record what the situation is, given that Pup Aid’s own research shows that over half of local authorities are unaware that they are empowered to act to amend licensing conditions and to stop the sale of puppies and kittens.
	It is the unanimous position of leading animal welfare organisations that the sale of puppies and kittens from retail premises should be banned. This regulatory change would inflict no additional burden on local authorities and match their own desire to clamp down on irresponsible breeding practices. Indeed, it is consistent with DEFRA’s own advice to prospective owners that
	“if you are buying a puppy or kitten, you should ask to see it with its mother and the rest of the litter”,
	and be satisfied that it is really the mother and not just a dog that has been brought in for show purposes.

Oliver Colvile: At a recent meeting I had with the Friends of Wyndham Square in Stonehouse, I heard about the number of people on benefits who end up breeding dogs to try to make some cash. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that should be looked at, too?

Robert Flello: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Not only do I think it should be looked at, but I wrote to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, and their response was very disappointing. Both of them wrote back and basically said, “Well, if you know of specific cases, report them; otherwise, we won’t do anything.” I think we need to see proper, from-the-top policy having a go through HMRC at those who are not paying tax and through the DWP at those who are not declaring it for other purposes. Let us have a national campaign on that.
	Let me reiterate what I would like to hear from the Government today. Will the Minister confirm that local authorities are already empowered to amend licensing conditions and ban outright the sale of puppies and kittens in pet shops? Will he require local authorities to tackle this issue using those existing powers? If those powers are in doubt, then given that section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 on licensing of activities involving animals was explicitly designed to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951, will the Government use those powers to bring forward secondary legislation to address this issue?
	Every day, hundreds of healthy, adorable cats and dogs are destroyed while at the same time hundreds of kittens and puppies are born in squalid pain and despair to satisfy the high street shops. Today is the first step of a campaign to show we are a nation of animal lovers. This evil trade must end. Today the Minister can be bold and begin the end of this trade. Thousands of animals’ lives are at stake. Minister, take that step with us, and make that change happen today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I remind the House that there is a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, as there is high demand among Members to take part in this important debate.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this timely debate.
	I refer Members to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on dog control and welfare and the Government response to it, and in welcoming the Minister, my hon. Friend for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), to his position, may I add that I hope his views have not changed too much since he contributed to that report? I also support the comment of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South that a review of existing legislation is needed.
	In the limited time available, I want to make some brief points. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the role of self-regulation, but I am slightly confused as to why he put so much emphasis on pet shops, because my understanding is that they are the one part of the trade that is pretty much regulated; the evidence we received in our report, which was published together with our recommendations, suggests that the Pet Animals Act 1951 pretty much covers that. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he has had any representations that the Act should be improved or reviewed.
	I would also like the Minister to update us on the Government’s response to our report: are the Government working with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group on the issue of sales of pets online, and, in particular, are they supporting the work to develop a voluntary code of practice? If the voluntary code is to succeed, it must have good animal welfare at its heart.
	The message from the House today should be that there is a role for self-regulation. Any responsible potential dog or cat owner should not be buying puppies or kittens where the mother is not present. That is so self-evident that I wonder whether we need not to legislate on it but simply to go out and educate the public.
	I congratulate all the charities involved. They briefed the Select Committee in the context of our report, and it is important to recognise their work, although the following is not an exhaustive list: Blue Cross in my constituency; Battersea Dogs and Cats Home; the Dogs Trust; the Dog Rescue Federation; the wonderfully and aptly named Four Paws. I also want to pay tribute to those who fund these charities. In doing so, they are taking many stray dogs and cats off our streets.
	I am asking the Minister today to tackle the rogue backstreet breeders and the rogue importers who import animals from puppy farms across the European Union. I hope that he will take this opportunity to update the House on internet advertising and on the voluntary code. Each and every one of us must do everything possible to discourage irresponsible dog breeders, and we need to set a lower threshold for licensing breeders.
	I would also like to ask the Minister whether his views have changed since he made his positive and welcome contribution to our discussions when adopting our report on dog control and welfare. Does he, for example, still hold to the view that, under the legislation, five litters a year should be the maximum, because a bitch would not be in a good enough state to have any more? That was his personal view at that time, and we benefited from his sterling contribution to our report. Has his view changed since he was with us on the Committee? I remind the House that the Committee’s conclusion was that five litters a year was too many. We recommended that a requirement to breed no more than two litters a year should be written on the face of the licence. Also, we would like to support better publicity for puppy contracts. I commend our report and recommendations to the House—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up.

Meg Munn: I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in the debate. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee
	for granting the debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing it and on his excellent speech, in which he covered many of the issues. Many of my constituents have urged me to support the debate and to take part in it.

Jonathan Reynolds: Many of us are here because of the weight of opinion that our constituents give to this matter, but does my hon. Friend agree that it feels as though we have been here before? I am thinking about the proposals for wild animals in circuses, on which action has still not been forthcoming, and about the badger cull, on which the will of the House has been clearly expressed. Will she urge the Government not only to listen to the debate but to take it seriously, to pay heed to the weight of opinion being expressed by our constituents and to follow this up with some action?

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend’s early intervention leads me to my next point.
	Over the summer, we have rightly been concerned to hear about the terrible human tragedies that are taking place around the world—in the middle east, in Ukraine and in parts of Africa—and some people might ask why animal welfare should have such a high priority and be regarded as so important when so much else is going on in the world. My response is to remind them of William Wilberforce, one of the great humanitarians and a great MP. Coincidentally, I was born 200 years to the day after he was.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Meg Munn: I will finish my point.
	William Wilberforce had his eyes fixed not only on ending slavery and the slave trade but on animal welfare. Along with a number of other people, including MPs, he was a founder of what was then the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It subsequently became the RSPCA, which has been such a force for good in animal welfare. We should never have to choose one or the other. A civilised society respects not only human welfare and rights but the rights of animals, and we should therefore support the motion today.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Meg Munn: I want to make some progress.
	The issue that brings us here today is that of the profits and money involved in the sale of puppies and kittens. Many of us get our pets from animal welfare organisations or from family, friends or colleagues. That is certainly true of my family. Our current two cats, Polly and Lucy—who will no doubt be delighted to find themselves in Hansard—came from Cats Protection. We went through a fairly rigorous process to get them. We had a visit to our home, and we then had to follow the proper processes to ensure their subsequent welfare. That is normal procedure, but it is very different when people buy animals.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady has shown amazing ingenuity in bringing Iraq, Ukraine and the slave trade into a debate on puppy farming. I entirely support the thrust of her argument. Importantly, we have not yet mentioned rescue dogs and cats; the debate has been all about puppies. I was brought up in a household in which we almost always took on rescue dogs, and we need more people to look at that option rather than simply buying a nice fluffy puppy from a shop.

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard that point being raised by other hon. Members on both sides of the House, but they have indeed done so. Some of us have always been motivated to go to those organisations first. Indeed, those organisations also have puppies and kittens. I have visited the RSPCA centre in Sheffield, which is housed in a fabulous building and looks after its animals well. It also takes seriously its responsibility for proper aftercare by ensuring that people who take on animals as pets understand what is involved, and it is available to offer advice and support.
	I entirely agree that that is a good way to find a pet, but of course not everyone goes down that route, so my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has been right to secure this debate so that we can discuss the options when money and profit enter the situation. We must always be conscious that, when the profit motive is present, there will be unscrupulous people who work in a different way. As the legislation changes and tries to keep up with the trade, those people will find ever more clever ways of getting round it in order to make a profit.
	We need to do a number of things. Raising awareness is enormously important, and this debate will put this story into people’s minds. It will appear in newspapers and on the internet, and people will learn what they might unwittingly be involved in when they buy an animal from a pet shop or even from a dealer. They will then be empowered to understand the questions they should ask, and be clearer about what they need to know before they take on the important role of looking after a pet. The Government also need to work harder in this area; I agree with hon. Members who have said that they need to do more. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has set out how that can be done quickly, and I urge the Government to take this matter forward.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in this important and well-attended cross-party debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for having secured it, and I agree with many of the points he made. I also pay tribute to my constituent, Carol Fowler, who has been campaigning on this issue for many years. Her campaign led to the television documentary “Pedigree Dogs Exposed”, which raised such disturbing issues on dog breeding that the BBC temporarily suspended its coverage of Crufts the following year.
	First, let me start with puppy farms. We need the Government to introduce strategies for improving conditions on those farms. I pay tribute to the Dog Advisory Council and to Professor Sheila Crispin, who
	runs it. The council has made recommendations on regulation and legislation to address the issues and to reduce red tape in relation to the farms. There are poor conditions on puppy farms, and they need to be addressed by the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which places a duty of care on the person responsible for pet animals. That duty of care must be enforced.
	The issues relating to puppy farms have already been rehearsed in this debate, but they are so shocking that they need repeating. There is often a failure to provide veterinary care, including vaccinations and simple health checks. Puppies suffer from lack of exercise, stimulation and socialisation. Breeding establishments are generally unsuitable and not fit for purpose. If puppies do not have suitable exercise, they are much more likely to suffer from problem behaviour.
	Puppies are often prematurely taken away from their mothers, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) said, the mother is often then expected to produce another litter and is left exhausted from repeated breeding.

Henry Bellingham: I also have a number of constituents who have been campaigning very hard on this issue. Hopefully, they can find common cause with my hon. Friend’s constituents. Does he agree that the role of pet shops is crucial, as they should be putting more pressure on the relevant agencies and other bodies?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I agree, but as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), said, legislation on pet shops is already in place. The thrust of this debate is on new legislation, but I say to the Minister that we should better enforce existing legislation, because then we might all get on a lot better.
	Poor puppy farms are responsible for many health problems, including infectious diseases such as parvovirus, internal and external parasites and a range of breed-related and inherited diseases such as heart disease, epilepsy and glaucoma. It is crucial that puppy farms are not only properly licensed, but properly scrutinised—the powers are there to scrutinise them—so that we can root out the ones that operate with inappropriate conditions. As I have said, we need to enforce existing legislation better.
	Secondly, the breeding of dogs for specific desirable traits can lead to serious genetic health problems as a result of inbreeding and closed gene pools. The body shape of some dog breeds can also cause immense suffering. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is illegal to beat a dog with a stick, but there is nothing to stop a breeder mating dogs to produce offspring that will then suffer from health problems.
	Thirdly, I recommend that all breeders adopt puppy contracts, which are produced by the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association and the Animal Welfare Foundation. Too often, buyers are not aware of the possible genetic problems related to poor welfare and breeding conditions.
	Fourthly, the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England, which was set up by this Government, could be in a perfect position to assist with the welfare of dogs. However, its performance to date has not met the desired level. The board should take a more active
	interest in the welfare of dogs, which it does not do at the moment. I urge the Government to give it a role in devising light-touch regulation, ideally based on the Dog Advisory Council’s recommendations on regulations under the Animal Welfare Act so that we can see active improvement in the welfare of dogs.
	The Dog Advisory Council, under Professor Sheila Crispin’s chairmanship, was funded entirely through the generosity of patrons, principally the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, the Blue Cross and the PDSA. It operates with a budget of only £25,000, yet the Government give £225,000 to the Farm Animal Welfare Council. There seems to be a slight imbalance within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the treatment of farm animals and companion animals. I hope that the Minister will take those facts back to his Department. If nothing else, we are a nation of animal lovers, and we need to take more seriously the welfare of companion animals such as dogs and cats.
	Obviously, it is welcome that micro-chipping will be mandatory from April 2016, but I urge the Minister to bring the date forward. We need a comprehensive list of registered dogs as soon as possible, and I see no reason to delay this for another two years. Currently, more than 100,000 dogs are stolen, abandoned or lost each year. If lost, the owner can suffer huge emotional turmoil. If a dog is abandoned, it is a crime. The urgent introduction of micro-chipping will help us to reduce dramatically the numbers of stray dogs on our streets.

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend for so generously giving way. I know that time is running short, but I hope that he will get an extra minute as recompense. I agree with him that this is about the enforcement of existing laws. Is not one of the key issues inspection? What we need are random inspections and a zero-tolerance approach where there are clear breaches of the standards already in place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We should enforce existing legislation with random inspections so that the owners and operators of puppy farms do not know when the inspectors are coming. That will hopefully ginger them up to improve their standards.
	The Minister will also need to address an amendment made to the Deregulation Bill in Committee which seeks to remove the requirement under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 for local authorities, when deciding whether to grant a dog breeding licence, to have regard to the need for dog breeding records to be kept in a prescribed form and to specify licence conditions to secure that objective. The Dog Advisory Council has written to the Cabinet Office and DEFRA Ministers asking them to reconsider the decision to repeal the relevant provisions as a matter of urgency, as not to do so would further undermine the effectiveness of the existing legislation.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, you have been generous with the time. This is an important debate. I hope the Minister will take away with him the fact that we are a nation of dog lovers. We need to enforce the existing legislation. There is too much cruelty in the dog world in this country.

Sharon Hodgson: I am extremely grateful to have this opportunity to speak in this important debate. As my inbox attests, it is an extremely important issue for many of my constituents. It is also important to me, as I am the owner of a lovely springer spaniel called Leo. My family adopted him when he was seven months old, and he is now nearly nine.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and his colleagues for securing this debate and for introducing it so well. I also pay tribute to the members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for their report on dog control and welfare.
	As any dog lover would agree, the crux of this matter is that we simply cannot see dogs or kittens as commodities. They are not an asset or a piece of capital from which a producer seeks to extract as much financial gain as possible. They are future members of our families, future best friends for our children and future companions for us when our children flee the nest. They are sentient beings, with similar feelings and reactions to us. We would not stand for our children being mistreated in the way that some domestic animals are at birth, as they are ripped apart from their mother and the nurture that she instinctively provides. We would not stand for that because we know how that kind of trauma affects them later in life, whether it is to their personality, their health or both. We all want to encourage more responsible dog ownership. I cannot think of any responsible dog owner who would be happy in the knowledge that their new puppy or kitten, which they thought had been bought from a reputable breeder or at least from a pet shop that deals exclusively with responsible breeders, had actually had such a traumatic start in life.

Kerry McCarthy: My hon. Friend is right to point out that often the people who purchase these animals do not realise the animal’s background or where they have come from. A report by the RSPCA said that breeders in eastern Europe and Ireland were selling so-called handbag dogs—little Chihuahuas that the likes of Paris Hilton carry around in their handbags. The breeders were only charging about £25 each for them, but they were then being sold on for between £800 and £1,500. Obviously, the people who are paying £1,500 for such a dog think they are getting a top-of-the market dog that has been very well looked after, but that is not the case.

Sharon Hodgson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Often those dogs go on to have terrible health conditions, which then cost the loving owner a fortune in vets’ fees, as they have to mitigate against some of those terrible breeding practices that the poor pup suffered in its early life.
	Obviously, the breeding and sale of puppies and other animals provides a living, and in some cases a good living. The vast majority of breeders have chosen that as a way of life because they love animals and love the joy that they can bring to the families to whom they go. Many are very particular about ensuring that their puppies go to a good and loving home. I do not want to see the lives of those breeders made more difficult by any change in the law. None the less, I am sure that they
	would be the first to agree that we must ensure that the law is strong enough to be able to stamp out the minority of breeders in the country who do not share their high standards of care.
	My constituents are particularly concerned when they see puppies for sale in pet shops without their mothers present. I understand that that practice persists in a very small minority of pet shops in the UK—about 2% according to Pet Care Trust. None the less, I agree with my constituents that that practice should be ended completely. It has been pointed out that some councils have successfully eradicated this practice in their areas through their licensing requirements, but, like buying a car, buying a pet involves the kind of purchase that people are prepared to go further afield to make. Indeed, my dog Leo is an Essex boy, and we travelled all the way there to adopt him. Although such actions are welcome, they mean little if all the surrounding councils do not feel able to follow suit. I therefore think it is worth looking at what more can be done at a central Government level to spread best practice across the country.
	I do not know what the right balance is in obtaining regulations that are enforceable and effective but that do not represent an onerous duty on local authorities or other agencies or place unnecessary restrictions on the many good, responsible and caring breeders, but it is clear that we are not striking that balance at the moment.

Bob Neill: I am very interested in the hon. Lady’s point about regulation. Although there is a role for central Government, does she agree that much more can be done by organisations such as the Local Government Association? The local government sector can collaborate to spread around best practice, which some councils have and others do not. As she rightly observes, this is an issue that runs across the country and it is important that we have the best possible knowledge for sometimes quite hard-pressed local authority enforcement arms.

Sharon Hodgson: The hon. Gentleman is quite right and has some expertise in this area. There are councils that have great best practice and it is important that we disseminate and share that.
	The other thing I want to mention is public awareness. Often the public are not aware that these issues exist and think when they buy a kitten or puppy, wherever they buy it from, that it will have been taken care of, nurtured and loved in the right way. We need the public to be made more aware of the welfare standards and of the legislation, as that would mean that they could have confidence in the system and could demand that puppies were bred in a fair and just way.
	I wholeheartedly support the calls in the motion for a review of the legislation on breeding and sale. I am pleased that my Front-Bench colleagues are committed to undertaking such a review if we form the next Government, but given that the election is eight months away and countless puppies and kittens will be born and sold between now and then, I hope that the Government will listen to the cross-party calls we have heard today and to the thousands of people who signed the petition and will announce that they will instigate a review forthwith.

Roger Williams: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. It has certainly created a huge amount of interest across the country.
	As I understand it, the purpose of the debate is to aim to encourage the Government to consider legislation that will make it illegal to sell puppies and kittens in pet shops. Local authorities already have the power to do that if the conditions of the retail outlet are poor, but this would involve an outright ban. I have considerable sympathy for that and urge the Government to consider it.
	Such is the demand for cheap pedigree puppies and kittens—and, indeed, for all puppies and kittens—as presents for young people and children that unscrupulous breeders and dealers of pets can make large amounts of money without any consideration for the welfare of the animals. It is said that many of the so-called puppy farms are based in Cardigan and Carmarthenshire, and I know that the Welsh Assembly Government and local authorities in that area are working hard to bring in regulations to ensure that the conditions are suitable for the breeding of animals. It is important that we use cross-border co-operation in dealing with these issues, because many of the animals bred in Wales end up being sold in parts of England.
	The subject of today’s debate, of course, is puppies and kittens, but yesterday the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs took evidence on the problem of horse welfare. The same concerns were raised about the indiscriminate breeding of horses and ponies, which are expensive to keep and often abandoned when the first enthusiasm to own them disappears and the cost becomes more apparent.
	The organisations promoting today’s debate make the very good point that conditions for neonatal animals are very important in ensuring that they stay healthy and have sufficient time with their mothers before weaning. Early weaning, which allows the bitches to be bred from again, means that many pups suffer from undernourishment and poor nutrition. I had a case in my constituency of an owner of Great Danes who was not breeding them indiscriminately but with careful consideration for the genetic well-being of the animals and their sale afterwards. Nevertheless, the challenges of maintaining these large animals with a litter of 12 rapidly growing pups proved too much for their management skills and the pups suffered from a number of complaints related to unhygienic conditions. In the end, the RSPCA intervened and removed the pups, which were then kept at considerable cost to the owner. I must emphasise that these were considerate and responsible owners who were not merely interested in money making, but we can imagine the conditions that persist in some puppy farms.

Stephen Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend’s point not emphasise that local authorities not only have an important role to play but must ensure that they played the role of inspecting both puppy and kitten farms?

Roger Williams: I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point. Another point that we should make, however, is that there are considerable limitations on the amount of resources local authorities can use for these purposes.
	In Wales, compulsory microchipping is being introduced for dogs from March 2015 and I believe that the same regulations will apply in England in 2016. If we made it compulsory to microchip pups within the first few weeks of their lives, if anything happened to those pups they could be traced back to where they were bred and action could be taken against any breeders who were found to be operating in conditions that were not suitable for those pups. Any pups showing signs of malnutrition or disease could be traced to their place of birth.
	I recently attended an event held by the Dogs Trust in the Royal Welsh agricultural show site in Llanelwedd in my constituency, where there was a massive dog show attracting dogs from around the country. The Dogs Trust made the point that microchipping can be done at no cost and I think that, before it becomes compulsory, all responsible dog owners should have their dogs microchipped.
	Buying a pup is a very serious business that should not be undertaken lightly. If someone buys a horse, for instance, they employ a vet to examine the animal and ensure that it is fit and healthy. It would be very good if that were replicated during the purchasing of puppies and kittens. I do not want to make pet ownership too over-burdened with regulation and bureaucracy, but, nevertheless, people should be educated about the responsibilities of making such purchases. Pets are very demanding in terms of the time that is necessary to look after them properly, and feeding them and maintaining their health through veterinary care is very expensive. I get a lot of letters from constituents who are very concerned about the costs of veterinary treatment. Tightening up the regulation on the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens is very important and I support that, but I also commend the work that charities do in emphasising the importance of taking decisions on pet ownership very seriously.

Jonathan Edwards: I wish to associate myself with the comments made by hon. Members from all parts of the House, deploring the barbaric treatment of kittens and puppies that are mass-produced in so-called “farms.” Regrettably, there have been many cases in my home county of Carmarthenshire.
	This debate, of course, takes place thanks to the 112,000 members of the public who signed an e-petition setting out their concerns. E-petitions were one of the positive reforms introduced in 2011 and offer the public a direct means of engaging with what is discussed in the House. I am glad that we are holding this debate today and hope that Ministers will act on what is said.
	As a lover of animals myself, and one who cohabits with a cat, a dog, two rabbits and a fish—not to mention the five horses that my wife owns—I was particularly horrified to learn that puppies and kittens bred in such farms are almost always separated from their mothers too early, are held in appalling conditions and are sold on an unregulated market. Prospective owners are often duped into believing that the mother has been kept with the kittens or puppies, when in fact those selling the animals use fake mothers to pose with the little ones in cages to mask the neglect that those animals have gone through. As a result of the poor
	conditions in which they are bred, the animals are likely to suffer from a weakened immune system and a shorter lifespan, and to develop behavioural issues that stem from a lack of trust in their owners.
	The UK Government’s response to the e-petition to date has been a statement by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which claims that the existing laws and regulations contained in the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are robust enough to deal with the problem—citing the law that requires dog breeders to obtain licences from the local authority, and stating that it is against the law for “hobby breeders” to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. It is, however, evident that the current system is not working, and that animals are being exposed to needless suffering.
	In Wales, animal welfare is devolved and a matter for the National Assembly and the Welsh Government. In August 2013, the Welsh Government launched a consultation that centred on dog breeding legislation, which asked whether changes should be made to dog-to-staff ratios in kennels—specifically, whether one full-time attendant should be required for every 20 adult dogs, or one part-time attendant for every 10 adult dogs.
	The proposed draft Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs)(Wales) Regulations 2013 were brought forward under section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and sought to repeal the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 in relation to Wales. The regulations, as drafted, would be enforceable by Welsh local authorities. Under the provisions, local authorities would have to be satisfied, prior to granting a licence, that dogs and their puppies would be kept in acceptable conditions. Those seeking to breed dogs would need to show that they would be providing adequate nutrition, bedding and exercise facilities. The regulations also specifically make mention of the welfare of puppies and provide for a socialisation programme, aimed at ensuring that puppies bred in approved premises are able to socialise with other animals and people, so that they do not go on to develop behavioural problems.

Kerry McCarthy: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that although a lot of the onus of enforcing these regulations and carrying out inspections falls on local authorities, and although trading standards have brought some successful prosecutions, both local authorities and trading standards, especially in my area, are really under pressure? They are really stretched and they do not have the resources to carry out such work. How can we address that?

Jonathan Edwards: That is an extremely fair point. Local authorities in Wales are looking at a 4% cut in their budget next year, according to the Welsh Local Government Minister. In Carmarthenshire, my home county, we have a major issue. If we are passing on those added responsibilities, resources need to come to match those responsibilities.
	Finally, the regulations stipulate that puppies cannot be sold until they are at least eight weeks old and have been microchipped, as my colleague, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), said. In
	December 2013, the Welsh Government brought forward draft legislation and laid out their intention to proceed with the proposed staff-to-adult-dog ratio of 1:20. The Minister said that the introduction of regulations was scheduled for February 2014, although I am not sure what progress has been made since the announcement. Indeed, I would welcome any comments from the UK Government Minister as to what, if any, discussions have taken place with representatives from the devolved Administrations on bringing forward changes to regulations concerning the breeding and farming of animals intended as domestic pets.
	Evidently, members of the public feel very strongly about this issue, and I empathise with their concerns. Those who signed the e-petition called for the Government to introduce regulations whereby the selling of kittens and puppies was banned unless their mothers were present. Puppy and kitten farming is an abhorrent practice, which must be stopped. I urge both the Welsh and UK Governments to listen to the public and act on their concerns.

Alec Shelbrooke: As a dog lover, I shall focus my comments today on dogs. Dogs have a unique bond with us humans. Our two dogs, Boris and Maggie, have a loyalty, a love and a calming nature—and of course there is the comfort that a dog can give you.

Bob Stewart: My dogs don’t love me.

Alec Shelbrooke: That does not surprise me.
	When people’s dogs or animals need medical attention, they worry about them as they would any other member of the family. Probably for the first and last time, I can say in the House that Boris’s bad behaviour improved immensely when I had him castrated. In seriousness, I raise that point because he did have a castration operation when he was younger, and that night he got constant attention because pets are like a member of the family and it is natural to give them that care. When the public buy animals, they should be able to expect that those animals have had a healthy start in life and have been well looked after, and they should have an understanding of where they have come from.
	In hindsight, my wife believes that our dog Maggie came from a puppy farm background. When we got her she had health problems and, in the first period of her life, some behavioural problems. We sorted out the health problems with the vet’s help and she is very healthy now. Now, at some two years old, her behaviour is very good; she is a very loving and caring animal, but it has taken a lot of love and care and attention from my wife and me to allow her to feel secure, comfortable and not threatened.
	How many families would be willing to put that level of love and care into an animal?

Edward Leigh: Why cannot Conservative Back Benchers be given this same love and care?

Alec Shelbrooke: I think that depends which side of the House they are on.

Daniel Kawczynski: May I just say for the record that I and my office have received more e-mails and letters on this issue than any other in the past few weeks? I hope that my hon. Friend agrees on the strength of feeling that exists on this issue among our constituents.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he highlights the reason that we have all had so much communication on this issue. It comes back to my point that puppies, kittens and other animals that we bring into our lives become part of our families. As the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said, we would not tolerate any harmful behaviour towards a human being in our family; many people feel the same bond with their animals and want to ensure that they are properly looked after.
	As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), if one visits Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, or the Dogs Trust in my constituency, and sees some of the consequences of bad behaviour and terrible care, one cannot help being moved. The Dogs Trust in my constituency does outstanding work but its resources are limited. How many families who were faced with the situation that my wife and I were faced with with our dog Maggie would give up and give their dog away to the Dogs Trust or elsewhere? But let us be under no illusions: the chances are that on many occasions, that dog will be killed—“to put down” or “to destroy” does not have the same impact as “the animal will be killed.” That is why we need to ensure that families offering love and care do not find themselves in a position where they simply cannot care for the animal.
	Many constituents have raised this issue with me, but they specifically raised an issue about a pet supermarket in Leeds called Dogs4Us. Petitions have been submitted to Leeds city council, asking it to remove the pet supermarket’s licence, and the city council has looked into the matter. I went further and did the research and looked at the Dogs4Us website, on which it makes reference to an internet campaign and refutes the allegations. The truth will lie somewhere in the middle. I have no primary evidence that these activities are going on, but I do have a lot of secondary evidence.
	That points to a bigger picture: what the public are looking for is faith in the inspection regime and licensing system. If that faith existed, people would believe that local authorities would be able to track down and stop what was going on in puppy farming. I urge the Minister to consider closely the suggestions that the licensing and inspection system be renewed, refreshed and redefined so that the public have faith that poor practices, criminality and downright cruelty can be eradicated.
	A dog is loyal, rewarding and life-saving; it promotes a healthy lifestyle through exercise and becomes an integral member of the family. As a dog lover, I have focused on dogs, but I know that cat lovers would say the same about their pets. We must do all we can to eradicate the cruelty and harm that can kill puppies and kittens, and to prevent loving and caring families who go out expecting to bring in a new member of their family ultimately experiencing heartbreak, because of a con at the beginning.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), a fellow West Ham United supporter. I congratulate all the colleagues who lobbied for the debate, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), whom I also congratulate on an excellent speech. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to have this debate, and the dozens of constituents who e-mailed asking me to participate in the debate, particularly Peter and Annie Walker, who I know are following the debate this afternoon. I thank all the animal welfare groups listed in the motion, especially the Dogs Trust, on whose briefing I will rely heavily in my remarks.
	I hope to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, in view of the number of Members who wish to speak. I have some points to make and a few questions to ask, all of which have, I think, pretty much been raised already. What struck me among the briefings from all the different groups was the similarity and consistency of the points raised. They spoke about the conditions of puppies in breeding establishments; restrictions on the number of litters; consistency of inspectors’ visits; easier and clearer enforcement of legislation by local authorities; the publication of the Welsh Government’s draft breeding regulations; the use of microchips to track puppies to breeders; the updating of sales legislation to take in the internet; and enforcement and implementation of the pet travel scheme regulations, particularly in relation to illegal imports.

Stephen McCabe: On that last point, does my hon. Friend think that the changes to the scheme due to come into force later this year are sufficient, or should we take a closer look at this European trade? Is it not one European trade we could do without?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I was going to comment on later. The Minister kindly afforded a meeting to myself and colleagues, as well as animal welfare groups, to discuss that very issue. We pressed him on the matter; he is clearly concerned about it and the officials were very much on the case. I hope he can give us an update today. DEFRA clearly recognises that there is a problem and has been working on it and making progress, and I seek an assurance from the Minister that that work will continue.
	The argument for a ban on pet shop sales was strongly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, and I am sure the Minister will respond to that case, but will he also comment on enforcement by local authorities? The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) said that her local authority is very good, but it will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether enforcement is consistent across the piece—it seems to have been suggested that some local authorities are better than others—and what DEFRA and DCLG are doing to make it more consistent. Could the information supplied to breeders be made clearer?
	Several of the briefings I received mentioned the Welsh draft breeding regulations. Does DEFRA regard those as helpful? Does it intend to replicate them, or will the Department wait to see whether they are passed
	in Wales? How helpful will microchipping be? Concern about the database has been registered. Will the Minister respond to questions about unscrupulous or even illegal advertising of puppies and kittens? I understand that DEFRA supported the voluntary scheme from the Pet Advertising Advisory Group; does the Department intend to go further and make that a regulatory requirement?
	Finally in this section of my speech, I wanted to ask about illegal imports and the efforts of DEFRA and the Home Office in that regard.

Bob Neill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am very happy to give way to another West Ham United supporter. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”]

Bob Neill: I am delighted that we have three in one debate. May I reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s point about illegal imports? The problem has affected constituents and indeed a member of my family, who rescued a dog that had been illegally imported. This is a real problem, and there is concern that even well-intentioned local authorities cannot cope with the abuse in their enforcement. We need to tackle it at national level.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman makes the point very well. I hope the Minister will comment in his closing remarks.
	Colleagues scoff about the number of West Ham United supporters who are in the Chamber today. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire is also a West Ham supporter, as is the hon. Gentleman. We are only missing my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), or we would all be here this afternoon.
	The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) mentioned the EFRA Committee report published in February 2013. Recommendations 19, 20 and 21 covered questions of the number of litters, enforcement, internet sales and illegal adverts. Those matters continue to be raised.

Rehman Chishti: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to a supporter of fantastic Gillingham football club. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the Kennel Club’s finding that in Kent 18% of individuals bought a pet either via the internet or from an unscrupulous pet shop? Does he agree that more work is needed on the internet angle?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. As I said, I hope the Minister responds regarding the internet and the voluntary agreement led by the PAAG. Over the years, I have got two dogs from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home; one came second in the Westminster dog of the year competition and one came first. I hope that today’s debate will raise the profile of the excellent rescue organisations across the country that will be delighted to hear from constituents of ours who want to look after dogs that have had to be abandoned for some reason, or have not been looked after from the start.
	This is an issue of great concern to the animal-loving public, as evidenced by the number of colleagues here and the interest shown by those outside. I look forward to hearing the responses from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), and from the Minister.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: I call the Gentleman in the Dogs Trust tie, Mr Simon Kirby.

Simon Kirby: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am a long-time supporter of Pup Aid and I pay tribute to the work carried out by Marc Abraham and many others outside this place to bring the issue of puppy farms to the attention of the House. I should declare that I am a lover of both dogs and cats, having a large German pointer, two Chihuahuas and a ginger cat called Mango.
	Can we imagine what it is like to be a pup born in a filthy and unsanitary puppy farm? Can we imagine being separated too early from mum and brothers and sisters to travel to a pet shop hundreds of miles away, sold en masse and treated as a commodity with little regard to our welfare? Can we imagine what it is like to be four times more likely to be affected by canine parvovirus? Canine parvovirus is a disease that attacks the puppy’s nervous system. It causes vomiting and diarrhoea, and can cost thousands of pounds to treat.

Bob Stewart: As we are imagining what it is like in those conditions, can we imagine a human child being separated from its mother at six weeks?

Simon Kirby: My hon. Friend draws a good parallel. It is important to note that cats and dogs have no voice. Here today, perhaps, we can give them a voice. Dogs and cats are loving creatures, and they need their parents and siblings to interact with.
	I think that all of us here today can imagine what these terrible things are like. Hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country can imagine the horrific conditions and the pain they cause. That is why we are here to debate the situation and, I hope, to move nearer to bringing it to an end.
	The reasons for the problems are clear and have been outlined very well by other speakers. We should listen to Pup Aid, which has said that everyone should ask, “Where’s mum?”, insist on seeing a puppy or kitten interacting with its mother, and be aware that the absence of the mother is likely to indicate that the puppy has been bred commercially and is being sold on by a third party.
	We should tackle this important issue, as it is supported by the majority of animal charities, welfare organisations and veterinary professionals. There is no justification for selling puppies or kittens in retail outlets. Puppy buyers, who are often unaware of these issues, need to get wise, asking where puppy farmers sell their pups and being aware that corners are often cut. We must urge dog lovers and cat lovers to do their own research before buying, and preferably go to a rescue home or a breeder they know and know they can trust.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point about the importance of the potential buyer seeing the mother of puppies or kittens. Does he agree that the age of the puppy or kitten is important too, and that ideally it should be eight weeks old before being separated from its mother?

Simon Kirby: Absolutely—I agree entirely. We heard earlier that some puppies are separated when as young as four weeks. Puppies need a chance to grow and develop into the characters they will be in later life, and to learn all they can from their mother and interact with their siblings. It is totally unacceptable that they should be separated at that young age.
	As well as the points made by Pup Aid and the requirement to see the mother, we should make sure that local authorities continue to be extremely thorough in their checks on breeding establishments. They should not grant licences where breeding establishments even remotely resemble a puppy farm.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman will have heard an earlier intervention about the problems of local authority funding. Does he agree that there must be sufficient public officials to examine how these breeding establishments operate, because without that, this travesty of justice for the animals will continue?

Simon Kirby: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. There are a number of issues involved. I hope that today we are sending a message to the public to be wise and careful and to think before they shop, and sending a message to the Government to ask, “Can we look again at the legislation? It’s not good enough for it to lie on the statute book—it has to be used to stop the trade that we see today.” Local authorities have their responsibilities as well, and they have to make difficult decisions, but I would argue that this is an important thing for them to check and keep a grip on.
	I would like us, as a House, to send these clear messages: first, we cannot support the sale of puppies and kittens in circumstances where it is not possible for the mother to be with the rest of her litter; secondly, we are aware of the serious and life-threatening animal welfare, public health and financial problems associated with pet shops and retail outlets; thirdly, we confirm that local authorities are already empowered to amend licensing conditions or to ban outright the sale of puppies and kittens in pet shops if they choose to do so; and fourthly, we encourage local authorities to tackle this issue using their existing powers. Those messages would help animal charities and welfare organisations to put their weight behind a public awareness campaign aimed at better educating owners.
	It is clear that all our constituents want the Government to act. Let us speak up for the puppies and kittens who have no voice. Let us stop this cruel and unnecessary practice and improve animal welfare. Let us educate people to think before they buy puppies and kittens, and let us all ask, “Where’s mum?”

Albert Owen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this excellent debate. I will be the third Welsh Member to contribute from across
	the parties, showing the strong consensus and feeling that there is about this in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) mentioned the measures in Wales, which have caused a lot of detailed examination of the issue. I hope that the Minister will take that up and look at it.
	Like many others, I am an animal lover. I have had dogs from different sources all my life. I first remember that, long before the internet, my father purchased a puppy from Exchange and Mart that came from a long way away in a cardboard box. That was the method that many used. It came on the train and we met it at the station. That dog lived for many, many years and was a healthy dog, and we were very lucky to have it. More recently, for some 12 years I had a sheepdog from the RSPCA. I pay tribute to the RSPCA for the work it does on welfare. I have also recently had a springer spaniel from a rescue centre. Rescue centres do a brilliant job, because if people cannot look after their dog they can take them there. The welfare and traceability of that dog are taken care of from the minute it enters the rescue centre, and that is very important.
	A minority of people breed dogs in terrible circumstances. They are still a minority, but the number is growing and it needs to be dealt with. Far too many of these puppy farms are in Wales, I have to say, and that is why Wales is ahead of the game in looking at legislation on how to deal with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South eloquently put the case about shops and high street sales, but I want to talk about the puppy farms themselves. Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked how we can use legislation and give local authorities the necessary resources. That is a difficult issue and we need to look at it sensibly. We need the Welsh Government, alongside the UK Government, to put forward legislation.

Jim Fitzpatrick: What stage are the draft Welsh regulations at? Are they out for consultation, are they being introduced, are they expected, or have they only just been published?

Albert Owen: I will refer to that. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) mentioned the issues that are already being dealt with through the legislation. The draft regulations that I am talking about are the Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2014, which were begun by the previous Environment Minister in Wales, who is unfortunately no longer in post. They have been published. A consultation and an environmental impact assessment have taken place, and we need to move forward.
	In the short time I have, it would be useful if I outlined some of those measures. Like every Member in this House, I am sure, I want all parts of the United Kingdom to have proper regulations and resources in place. I do not want puppy or kitten sales close to the border to be subject to different regulations. We need a UK-wide approach, although I respect the fact that the issues are devolved to different UK Administrations.
	Under the Welsh Government’s proposed regulations, dog breeders would have to have a licence, which would be regulated by local authorities, although I know there is an issue with resources. This would replace section 1 of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 in Wales, and I hope it could also be applied across the United Kingdom. If
	a breeder was found not to have the required licence, they could face a custodial sentence, so this is as much about having a deterrent as it is about having actual regulations. Dog breeders are defined as those who have a minimum of three breeding bitches on their premises and who breed three or more litters of puppies over 12 months. All adverts for puppies for sale should be done properly. Those types of regulations would open up transparency so that people would know what they were purchasing. Under the proposals, in order to get a licence the premises must be inspected by the local authority. Resources are needed for that, but it would ensure high standards from the beginning.
	This House discusses a lot of issues, and animal welfare is very important. I am very proud of the fact that we introduced the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but it does not go far enough. This debate has given the whole House of Commons an opportunity to come together and listen to what people out there really care about—they care about animal welfare as well as other issues—and to act. I am proud of many of the Backbench Business Committee debates we have had over the past three or four years. It is important that the Government listen to what Members relay on behalf of their constituents, and this excellent debate has raised such issues. We want to find a solution to stop the unethical way in which dogs are being bred, because we all care about our animals.
	Finally, a number of TV programmes help raise awareness, which is important, because the British public care. The British Parliament must relay their views and we have done so sufficiently today. I hope the Minister will take them on board and look at the Welsh measures to which I have referred.

Paul Burstow: I start by echoing the remarks of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen): this has been a very good debate that has highlighted an issue that so many of our constituents feel so strongly about. I have been overwhelmed by the number of constituents who were determined to make sure I attended this debate; I know that the same is true of other hon. Members, as demonstrated by their presence and contributions.
	I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for his opening remarks and for securing the debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee. Like other hon. Members, I am a pet owner. I have a fantastic dog called Indy, who is a Labrador-collie cross: he has the brains of a collie and the appetite of a Labrador, which I am sure hon. Members will agree is a fatal combination. He is also currently courting votes, because he is standing in the Kennel Club election for parliamentary dog of the year—that is the only canvassing I will do on his behalf during this debate.
	This debate is really important, because it is about giving the Government an opportunity to set out what they are already doing and to respond to hon. Members’ calls on behalf of their constituents to do more. More can be done within the purview of existing legislation and regulation to make a difference to the lives of puppies and kittens and how they are treated, and to
	ensure that the public are better informed and able to make better judgments when buying a dog or pet in order to themselves ensure that those animals are being raised to the highest welfare standards. If we were having a discussion about farm animals, we would not tolerate the sorts of things that puppies and kittens often have to put up with as a consequence of the gaps in our regulations.
	There can be no justification for the retailing of puppies and kittens through pet shops. Over the years many of my constituents have felt aggrieved that there have not been sufficient powers to deal with such inappropriate sales and the way in which they provide a channel for disreputable dealers to sell their product, as it were. I say “product” because that is how they see it—this is about the commodification of something the public love so much. Surely that needs to be addressed through the licensing system, and I hope the Minister will say what the Government are minded to do to ensure that local authorities are aware of the latitude they have when setting licence conditions for pet shops. Other hon. Members have been right to highlight that, and I am sure that the Government, along with the Local Government Association, could do much more. It is a concern that these dealers and breeders remain in the shadows, unchecked and unregulated, while using shops to retail these pets.
	As has been mentioned, the wild west of the internet is being used by unscrupulous breeders and dealers to prey on the public’s love of cats and dogs, and to peddle sick and poorly treated puppies and kittens. I hope the Minister will tell us what further steps he intends to take to collaborate with the body responsible for the voluntary arrangements for advertising in this area, in order to satisfy him, hon. Members and our constituents that the code of practice is being followed. If it is not being followed, what further steps could be taken to ensure that the issue is properly addressed?
	The Government should be praised for their determination to introduce compulsory chipping, but it will only be useful if it provides for proper traceability in the long run. I hope the Minister will tell us more about that.

Albert Owen: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point about chipping. Of course, the more dogs that are chipped and the more veterinary surgeries that do it, the more people will get it done and the cheaper it will be. Cost and the economies of scale is an issue for some people. Traceability is very important and having licensed puppy farms would enable a trace right back to the source.

Paul Burstow: That is absolutely right and I hope that when the Minister responds he will tell us more about how the scheme will be rolled out and how those economies of scale will make it not only a blessing for owners, but a way of properly policing unscrupulous breeders.
	Finally, I endorse the strong comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the value of choosing to adopt a rescue dog. It is absolutely the right thing to do. My dog Indy is a re-homed dog who was quite a handful when he arrived. He is a reformed character now, but none the less he does still go for the occasional bit of picnic snaffling in the park. There are
	some fantastic charities that make adoption possible. We need to make sure that they are better known and that the public choose to support them more often.
	I hope the Government will weigh carefully the representations made by hon. Members. I do not think that the status quo is acceptable; it is certainly not acceptable to many of my constituents when it comes to the welfare of pets. It is essential that the Government take this opportunity to set out their determination to ensure that there are the very highest standards of welfare and protection for pets, particularly puppies and kittens.

John McDonnell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for securing this debate, and the 125,000 people who signed the petition. If nothing else, it has enabled MPs to get up and demonstrate how many dogs, cats and goldfish they own, and also to put their names on the historic record—a valuable contribution to our civilisation.
	Early in 2009, a network of puppy farms in Wales was exposed. It was horrendous and showed the barbaric treatment of animals. I tabled an early-day motion, which was signed by 75 hon. Members and called for a review of the legislation to ensure that it was effective. At the time and since, we were given various assurances that the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 were appropriate. I am grateful for the work done by the Select Committee and various campaigning organisations to demonstrate that, although that legislation laid the foundations—I welcomed the 2006 Act and thought it was quite comprehensive—a lot more detail needs to be addressed.
	I fully support a number of the proposals that have been made today. I think that reducing the number of litters allowed each year under the licensing regime to two is critical. Beyond that, breeding becomes an industry, and that is the point at which abuses start. Importation is critical. The threshold of five animals per individual is too high, because it enables a large number of animals to be introduced into the country, almost subverting the current legislation. The third issue raised today was the removal of puppies from their mothers after only two, three or four weeks, and I take a fairly strong line on that. I would have a limit of 12 weeks, rather than the proposed eight weeks. I want a harder regime, and I want it to be encompassed in legislation so that it is clear-cut.
	Too often in this House we will the objectives without willing the means to achieve them. As has been said a number of times, local authorities do not have the resources invested in this to enable them to undertake the kind of enforcement regime that we expect. It would be wrong simply to castigate those authorities, because in many areas they are struggling to protect children and elderly people with the resources they have. Their resources are stretched. I think that it behoves us now to review in detail the resources available to individual local authorities.
	Earlier in the debate an hon. Member talked about the need to inculcate best practice across local authorities, and I agree, but best practice still relies on expert professionals being able to undertake inspections, work
	with the RSPCA and the voluntary sector, advise owners— some of this is about advising those involved in the industry on how to raise their standards—and, ultimately, ensure that there is enforcement. Having talked with other Members and local authorities in my area and elsewhere, I understand that those resources are not available.
	I would like the Minister to engage in dialogue with local authorities and perhaps survey them on what resources are being devoted to the issue already and how they need to be strengthened. He could then bring the report back to the House so that we can properly undertaken our role, which is to set objectives and ensure that a systematic process is in place and that we devote the resources for tackling the problem. That way, I think that we can manage to find a way forward. If we cannot do that, all the pious words and eloquent speeches we have heard will be irrelevant, and we will be back here in another four of five years to talk about more scandals and an excellent legislative regime that is not being implemented at the grass roots, where resources and implementation are vital.

Justin Tomlinson: It is an absolute pleasure to follow such a powerful speech, which drew on a long track record on this important issue. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), as other Members have done, for bringing forward such an incredibly important campaign. It has united Members across the Chamber. This has been one of the most positive and constructive debates I have taken part in. I am delighted that the campaign was highlighted in the Swindon Advertiser, in which the hon. Gentleman featured. We have all been contacted on social media by a great number of people. Interestingly, my Facebook page with the article on the campaign attracted over 60,000 views and 534 shares, which is 10 times more than for anything I have done before. That is no surprise, as 13 million households in this country have pets.
	As Members have been naming their pets, I am delighted to say that my wife champions rescuing dogs—I have almost had to put in place a limit. Susie, our 11-year-old rescue dog, which we found on the Golden Oldies website, recently came second in the Lydiard park best rescue dog competition, which means international fame for her.
	The mass commercial production of puppies purely for profit and without care for their welfare or happiness is a serious issue.

Pat Glass: I sometimes feel that we do not fully understand who the people are who run those places. There is at least one puppy farm in my constituency, and the people who run it are linked to organised crime. Whether it is the exploiting of people or animals, drugs, or crash for cash, those people are willing to exploit anything, including the most vulnerable animals.

Justin Tomlinson: I thank the hon. Lady for that important intervention. The evidence shows that 95% of people would not wish to buy from puppy farmers, but over 900,000 people a year inadvertently do so. It is a hidden crime.

Nicola Blackwood: We have heard many important speeches on puppy farms, but I hope that it will also be acknowledged that it equally affects kittens, as the motion states. Having been a cat owner all my life—my current cat is called Naughty Cat—I hope that we can also ask for the regulation to be reviewed to take account of the impact on kittens and that owners are made suitably aware of the issue when seeking to buy a new cat.

Justin Tomlinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention—my cats, Monty and Maggie, will have cheered. They are very proud that they came from properly licensed breeders.
	Despite the obvious concerns about animal cruelty, horrific breeding conditions, malnourishment, lack of socialisation, lack of immunisation and de-worming, contracting infectious diseases and puppies being separated from their mothers too early, people unknowingly support puppy farming by purchasing pups from unlicensed breeders, thereby fuelling the puppy farming industry and putting themselves at risk of spending thousands of pounds on a puppy that is doomed to die soon after reaching his or her new home.
	We know that one in three purchased pets come through pet shops online, particularly sites such as Gumtree, which was very slow to react to improve standards, or via newspaper adverts. Credit is due to the Pup Aid campaign, set up by Marc Abraham—Marc the vet from television, who is a celebrity—with great support from the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Blue Cross, Cats Protection, Dogs Rescue Protection and the RSPCA. All the heavyweights from the animal welfare world support this incredibly important campaign.
	In summary, we want to see mandatory regulation and licensing for all dog breeders in the UK, rather than just those who breed four or more litters a year, and a ban on pet shops selling puppies. The majority of pet shop puppies come from farms, and there is no reason to allow that to continue. There should be stricter adherence to the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, which demands that no person may keep a breeding establishment for dogs without a licence granted by the proper authority. The granting of a licence requires inspections of breeding practices and premises by a veterinary surgeon or practitioner and an officer of the authority, giving consumers confidence, as supported by 95% of the British public.
	We must also ensure that enforcement is consistent, good and that it happens everywhere, because all too often it is patchy at best. There needs to be strict adherence to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which Pup Aid believes requires secondary legislation. I would not normally call for regulation, but on a matter of such importance, and with great support from the public, I think that this is one of those times when we can push for it. It would repeal any outdated legislation and could be introduced to prohibit the licensing of pet shops or retail outlets that sell puppies or kittens where the mother is not present. However, regulation alone is inadequate. We also need to ensure that enforcement officers are well trained and supported so that there are more frequent and tighter inspections for breeders, giving consumers confidence that they are getting what they believe they are getting.
	In conclusion, we need to end the free-for-all of mass breeding of puppies and kittens that prioritises profit over welfare. The public want action and I and other Members across the House fully support that.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am pleased to be taking part in this debate. Like other Members, I would like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). He and the colleagues who have supported him so well have taken us into a most important debate. Clearly this matter strikes a chord across the country. If I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) correctly, about 125,000 people have now put their names to the e-petition. I am very pleased to say that my family’s names are proudly inscribed on it. We are a house of dog lovers. We can boast three Great Danes and a disgracefully overfed Labrador—well, a fat Labrador, which might not be uncommon in other Members’ households. My wife has gone to the trouble of rescuing three donkeys—now five—from various distressed situations in Britain and Europe. Their only function seems to be to ensure that we keep a very organic way of gardening under way at home. There are many humorous stories that we could all tell about our experiences of the pets in our families. A love of animals is deep in the psyche of the British people. We would do well to respect that and, more importantly, to respond to it in any way that we can.
	I think that we can all agree that pre-eminent among the 125,000 people is Marc Abraham. His Pup Aid programme has touched the consciences of many people throughout our constituencies. One such person in my constituency is Joy Yeates, who has written to me unremittingly on this topic and who wanted to ensure that I was here today to contribute. I am conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I just want to read a short excerpt from the letter that she sent me most recently:
	“Puppies need more than a cage, food and drink, as their emotional needs cannot possibly be met in this crucial period of development.”
	I am sure that we all utterly agree with that. She continued:
	“For that reason, Pup Aid is seeking a ban on the sale of puppies in pet shops where the mother is not present.”

John Redwood: I just want the hon. Gentleman to know that many people in Wokingham entirely echo his sentiments and those of his constituent. She has put it extremely well.

Geoffrey Robinson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is very welcome, coming as it does from such a distinguished intellectual quarter of the Conservative party. It was up to his usual high intellectual standard.
	Joy Yeates then urged me to attend this debate. I am pleased to be here and to give the point of view of those who want practical steps to be taken.
	Although he is not present, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has been foremost in saying that a huge strength of organisations are in support of us here. There have been
	a string of legislative attempts to tackle different aspects of the problem. Those have all been made with the best of intentions. Those of us who took part in the debates on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 know that. I am pleased to say that I had a role in that. It is not easy to legislate in this area, and I caution against early legislation—certainly primary legislation. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who will speak for the Opposition today—although there is no party divide on this issue—agrees with me about that entirely.
	There is a lot that we could do by looking at the series of legislation and guidance, and at the responsibilities as they are currently defined within local government. We could bring together and simplify the plethora of different and sometimes not wholly complementary sets of guidance and regulations to ensure that we know who is responsible for pursuing each aspect of the problem.
	I do not expect the Minister to be able to say much about my next point. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South insisted that he did not want to get distracted by the internet, but we have to face the fact that if we succeed in bringing breeding under control, the internet will become the problem. My experience, in both north Wales and Clacton, was that the breeders were very responsible. Twelve weeks was the minimum period for which the puppies stayed with their mothers, so those were very good breeders. However, if we manage to do all that we are setting out to do, the internet will still be there and it will become ever more attractive as the other sources of puppies and so on are stopped. If the internet is as viral as I expect, in the sense that it attracts so much attention and demand—I hope that it will not be—we will have to find ways of dealing with it. That might mean having some mandatory restrictions on websites. I will leave that with the Minister, as well as the other problems.
	I look forward to hearing from the Minister a coherent, clear-cut set of proposals that have been worked on, which will deal with the problem in a practical and sensible way, with minimal additional fuss and bother in terms of paperwork from the Government. I am very pleased to have taken part. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Edward Leigh: Obviously, this is an emotive and emotional debate, especially for those of us who have welcomed dogs and cats into our homes and included them almost as members of our family. I will not talk about my own dog because it would be too emotional. Sadly, he has just passed away. However, I will talk about the dog of the former Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook, Lord Hattersley. He has written eloquently of his love for his departed dog, Buster. We all have similar stories to tell. It seems to me that dogs have many of the virtues that us politicians lack—particularly silence and loyalty.
	Our sympathy for these animals reflects the comfort and companionship that they provide, particularly for elderly people, in our increasingly atomised society. Therefore, everybody who has spoken believes that we have a duty of care to these creatures and it is no surprise that so many of our constituents have written
	to us. They rightly feel strongly about the cruelties that puppies and kittens are forced to undergo in puppy farms, especially being separated far too early from their mothers.
	The point that I want to make in this debate is that an extraordinarily wide scope of legislation is available to local authorities and Ministers already. We should be proud of that legacy of legislation in our country, which goes back well over 100 years. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded in 1824 by a group of zealous reformers, including such illustrious Members of this House as William Wilberforce and Richard Martin—both of whom were, incidentally, good high Tories. In its first year, the society managed to bring more than 60 offences to the courts. It was awarded royal patronage by Queen Victoria in 1840. We all know of the vital work of the RSPCA, so it does not need to be underlined. There is already much legislation on the statute book. To name a few, we have the Pet Animals Act 1951, the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991 and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999.
	No one can deny the inhumane conditions that exist in puppy farms—they have been well listed today—and nobody can deny that more should be done to eliminate them from existence. Through their licensing of pet sellers, local authorities have all the inspection powers they need. When they are not satisfied that suitable welfare conditions exist, they can refuse operating licences.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am listening to the thrust of my hon. Friend’s speech. He has named the different pieces of legislation. Does he agree that what is needed is a tidying up of the legislation, so that we have specific legislation that can be implemented efficiently and effectively?

Edward Leigh: That is a fair point and it leads directly to the last point that I need to make. All too often in this place, when we see abuses continuing, we fly to the temptation to create new legislation. What we need to do is to enforce the existing legislation better and ensure that it is modernised and updated, because it is in place.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the legislation being in place. Does he agree that consumer behaviour is the key to this issue? For example, parents who go with young children to look at puppies will often find themselves in a difficult place emotionally if they decide not to take the puppy that their children want, even if they do so because it is unsuitable, it is too young or there is no mother there. Does he agree that consumer behaviour is one of the things that we need to change?

Edward Leigh: That point is absolutely right.
	We have to resist the temptation to legislate. I say gently to my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) that I am not sure that it would be wise to stop pet shops selling puppies through legislation in this place. That might be too heavy-handed. We have to be careful that we do not, because of our concern and emotion about these subjects, bring in more legislation that might be unenforceable. We must remember that
	enormous numbers of puppies are brought in from without the jurisdiction and from where we have very little control.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) makes an important point. First, we need to enforce the legislation that we already have. Local authorities have the powers. Secondly, we need to proclaim the message that the key to this problem—all the organisations and charities that are involved in this matter agree with him about this—is to inform the consumer. It is the consumer who must make the informed choice, as we did, to go to the dog breeders to see the puppy with the mother. They should not buy a puppy in some halfway location or go to a pet shop. They should do their research and work out whether they have the resources to look after what is a living creature. I hope that we can send that message from the debate, rather than calling for more and more legislation.

Nicola Blackwood: Would my hon. Friend like to explain how he would expect consumers to divine hidden illnesses among puppies and kittens that they are trying to buy?

Edward Leigh: That is a fair point, but we can send out the message that if people go to a responsible dog breeder rather than buy a puppy off the internet, they are far more likely to acquire a dog that will not have behavioural problems in the future and will have been raised with its mother in a healthy and proper way.
	We need to explore how to better enforce existing legislation rather than add to the already deep panoply of laws and regulations. The Government are committed to not increasing regulation unless absolutely necessary. They should consider how they can better help local authorities to work against puppy farms, and Members of all parties, working together, must ensure that we create safe and humane conditions for animals throughout the United Kingdom.

Caroline Lucas: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on his persistent campaigning for stronger regulation of the sale of puppies and kittens. As many hon. Members have said, puppy farming is a horrendous business. Dogs are kept for their whole lives in often small, dark and filthy kennels, and they are used essentially as breeding machines. They have no chance to express their normal behaviours, and many suffer from untreated illnesses. Such farms really are factory farms for dogs. We need to grasp the opportunity to put an end to the barbaric practice of puppy and kitten farming once and for all.
	We know that there are some key measures that we could decide to take that would make significant steps towards achieving that. That is why I want to add my voice to the many others asking the Government to take what steps they can today. I add my strong support for the measures set out in the motion, and I want to pay my own tribute to someone a number of hon. Members have mentioned, who has been a real driving force behind the campaign. That is the Pup Aid founder and
	Brighton-based vet Marc Abraham. His contribution to ending puppy farming and to animal welfare more generally is hugely impressive, and he has helped to assemble a formidable coalition, about which we have already heard a lot, including Blue Cross, the Dog Rescue Federation, the Dog Advisory Council, the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club and the RSPCA. Added to that, as we know, the latest figure for the number of people who have signed the petition is about 125,000, so the strength of feeling across the country that we should be doing more to act is clear.
	As a rescue dog owner myself—I got that dog from a wonderful RSPCA centre in Brighton—I want to add my voice to those of the many Brighton residents who have taken the time to write to share their concerns about puppy farming, and often to share their photographs, too.
	I want to mention a vet whom I have been speaking to. It concerned me that she said that in her experience, the problem is actually becoming significantly worse. In her view, it will not change without some kind of intervention or regulation.

David Burrowes: I share the hon. Lady’s concern about puppy farming. Banning puppy sales is one way of tackling the problem, but is that not just the tip of the iceberg? We need to consider the issue of supply, at the core of which is transportation from other jurisdictions. Should we not look at proper enforcement against the cruel transportation of puppies?

Caroline Lucas: I certainly agree that we need to do that. My slight concern is that although some hon. Members are asking us to examine other issues, which we certainly should, that should not be at the expense of doing what we can here today. I completely take on board, for example, what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said about animals coming from other jurisdictions or via the internet, which may be a harder nut to crack right now. However, that should not mean that we do not act now to take action on pet shops, garden centres and so on. I agree that that will not be a panacea or a silver bullet, but we can do it relatively straightforwardly. We should do it, because we can do it and it will make a difference.
	I was speaking about the vet who had raised with me her concerns about pedigree puppy farming in particular, which can result in particularly grim conditions. Genetic problems range from serious breathing difficulties to chronic, lifelong skin allergies to crippling joint problems. The real concern is that some of those problems, such as obstructive airway syndrome, are seen as normal by those who are willing to put looks and fashion before animal welfare. A price tag of more than £1,000 is not uncommon for breeds such as pugs and bulldogs, and the inevitable outcome is more breeding to meet more demand.
	That vet explained to me that in some breeds of bulldogs, the majority of bitches cannot give birth naturally and need a caesarean to deliver puppies. She explained that she had come across breeders who were so willing to put their dogs under repeat surgeries, so that they could keep breeding them for as long as it was profitable, that they literally bred the dogs to death.
	Of course, some of the responsibility should stop with the consumers who are willing to pay to purchase dogs from puppy farms and bad breeders. That is why I welcome the fact that the motion mentions the importance of raising awareness. However, I believe that many people are simply not aware of the issue. They do not know that if they buy a puppy from a pet shop, it could have come from the type of grim background that we have described, so raising awareness is massively important.
	The role of local authorities is also massively important, and I underline again the importance of ensuring that they are properly resourced to carry out the welfare checks that they have the right to do. However, that does not take away from the fact that the Government need to act as well. The vet that I have been referring to says that she does not believe the problem is
	“likely to go away anytime soon without some kind of intervention or regulation.”
	I believe that there is a case for overwhelming action today. The fact that we cannot do everything does not mean that we should not do anything. I very much hope that the Government will listen to the strength of feeling throughout the House and the country and swiftly take the measures that are within their power.

Andrew Turner: I will keep my remarks brief. I am concerned that a number of people no longer think that owning a dog, or indeed any pet, is a serious long-term commitment. That is shown by one statistic on dog ownership in the UK, which is that according to the RSPCA, one fifth of those who have bought a puppy within the last two years no longer own that dog. The definition of a commodity is
	“a marketable item produced to satisfy consumer wants or needs”,
	but puppy farmers consider only the wants or needs of the consumer. The wants or needs of their marketable item are irrelevant.
	Britain is known across the world as a nation of pet lovers, but allowing the battery farming of puppies is cruel to the bitches involved and to their puppies. They are too frequently taken away from their litters far too early, unsocialised, traumatised and have health and temperament problems. With such a poor start in life, it is little wonder that they do not always settle easily into the families who buy them with such great hopes.
	Allowing puppies who should become much loved family members to be traded as a commodity means that it is not only the dogs that lose out. People have also lost money, but many will also have lost their faith in dogs. The RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and smaller dog rescue charities such as Friends of the Animals and Bracken’s Dog Rescue on the Isle of Wight, pick up the pieces. All those excellent charities know only too well that puppy farms add to the problems. Too many dogs, many of whom are still young, need good, loving homes, which are harder and harder to find. We should therefore look carefully at reducing the number of litters. Many people think that two a year, rather than five, is the appropriate number to license. Local authorities should prosecute every time they find bad practice in licensed breeding premises.
	Sentencing guidelines should make clear that practices typically associated with puppy farming are a serious criminal offence. Someone convicted of cruelty or poor
	dog breeding should be barred from holding a licence or working in any dog breeding establishment. Only then will we be able properly to tackle the cruel practices and horrible repercussions of puppy farming.

David Amess: As a member of the Backbench Business Committee I am pleased that we are debating this subject, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on his speech. I agreed with every word.
	In this country we have a wonderful record in animal welfare, in contrast with a number of other countries. If the Minister responds in a positive fashion to what he has heard this afternoon, and to the huge number of representations made by constituents throughout the country, I think our stock will grow further. Before this debate, behind the scenes, I tried to do something about this issue, and I had a meeting with the splendid Lord de Mauley. He listened carefully to everything I said, and at the end of the meeting he suggested that I write a letter. I say to the Minister, in a kind way, that I want him to be brave this afternoon. I want him to tear up the speech drafted for him by civil servants, and—unlike my colleagues who feel that we do not need legislation—I want him to respond in a positive fashion to what he has heard. We all know that on occasion civil servants will say, “No, Minister.”
	I had the privilege of serving on the Bill Committee for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which amended the Protection of Animals Act 1911. The 1986 Act was groundbreaking at the time and dealt with a huge range of cruelty that was meted out to animals in this country. Since that time there have been many other attempts, and in my rather ham-fisted way I tried to promote the Dogs Bill in 1989, and the Pet Animals (Amendment) Bill in 1990. I therefore say to my colleagues that although I agree that we as Conservatives are against legislation, we need to do a tidying-up exercise.
	I want to praise Clarissa Baldwin of the Dogs Trust, Rosemary Smart of the Kennel Club, the wonderful vet Marc Abraham, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan). All those people are judges in the Westminster dog of the year show, and I will be entering—yet again—my two rescued pugs, Botox and Lily. They are somewhat depressed after parading before the judges, year after year, and getting absolutely nowhere. I have now got them into an arranged marriage, so I think the least that they could be awarded would be the prize for best married dogs in the show. I will not mention kittens because I will leave that to my good friend Ann Widdecombe.
	I congratulate all organisations that have worked so hard on this issue. The provisions in the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 are inadequate. The wording of the Act is confusing and leaves too much space for individual interpretation. Producing five litters every year is absolutely ridiculous—two is quite enough. I hope the Minister will respond positively to that.

Roger Gale: My hon. Friend and I came to the House on the same day, and he will recall that since the late Nicholas Ridley abolished the dog licence, there has been resistance by successive Governments to the establishment of a “Swansea for
	dogs”. The fact of the matter is—the Minister needs to understand this—that unless and until every animal sold is properly registered, vaccinated and documented, and there are proper controls over the breeding and sale of not just dogs but cats as well, the problem will not be solved. The time has come for legislation.

David Amess: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have stood shoulder to shoulder for more than 30 years, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and I hope that the Minister will forget his brief and respond positively to all the remarks made this afternoon.

Alec Shelbrooke: When pressing the Minister, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is all very well our hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) saying that an amount of self-regulation can be involved—such as insisting on seeing the mother of the animal—but that does not take into account the emotional side and what people feel when they see a puppy? Therefore stronger legislation and restrictions need to be in place.

David Amess: I agree with my hon. Friend, although I am not sure about his earlier remarks about the castration of his dog. It is crucial that puppies are exposed to extensive social interaction and stimuli during the first 12 to 14 weeks of their lives, but that is more than commercial farmers are willing to provide. As a result, dogs coming from commercial puppy farms are undoubtedly more aggressive, less responsive, and less trainable. Current legislation regulating the operation of pet shops dates back to 1951—a very long time ago. We need to change the legislation, particularly to reflect the impact of the internet, which is the issue that has brought so many colleagues to the House this afternoon. The Pet Animals Act 1951 appears only to address the physical requirements that pet shops need to meet. It takes no account of the mental well-being of a pet being sold, or of dogs that need physical exercise. Clear guidance needs to be provided to local authorities.
	I have also been made aware of the growing problem of illegal dog importation to the United Kingdom, and I urge the Secretary of State to examine how the influx of puppies from rabies-endemic eastern European countries can be addressed. I say again to the Minister: be bold, tear up the speech, and do something to stop puppy and kitten farming.

Neil Parish: It is a privilege to speak at the end of this debate, because it has been a good debate and all parties have come together. I have the great pleasure of chairing the all-party group on animal welfare, and I believe this is an issue that we all care strongly about.
	There are more than 11 million cats in this country, and Blue Cross and Cats Protection take in between 4,000 and 5,000 stray cats and kitten a month. That shows the scale of the problem with not only puppies but kittens. If kittens are taken too early from their mother, not only is that bad for their welfare, but most will probably depart this world for health reasons. We must be clear about that.
	It is more important than ever to ensure that we can enforce whatever legislation is in place—I am sure that is what the Minister will speak about this afternoon. It is no good having legislation that we cannot enforce. This is not just an animal welfare problem. When someone chooses a puppy, they are bringing an animal into their household. They may have young children, and that puppy is potentially dangerous and could grow into a dangerous dog. If people do not see the mother of that puppy and the environment in which it has been raised, they will not know what could happen in their family with that puppy.
	With the internet, it is becoming much easier to access a puppy, and if someone goes to buy one and their child picks it up and loves it, it is difficult for them to say they are not going to buy it. Not only will the puppy be difficult from a welfare and behavioural point of view, it may be suffering from many diseases. It probably will not have had proper inoculations or been dealt with properly, whether it has come from a badly managed puppy farm or from eastern European countries where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) mentioned, rabies and other diseases are a problem. We must act on all those issues to protect people from buying the wrong type of puppy or kitten.
	I am not against designer dogs such as Cockapoos or Labradoodles, but they are expensive. People decide they want this type of dog, they look on the internet and they see a puppy that is half or a third of the normal price of a Cockapoo or Labradoodle. Naturally, people buy the cheaper puppy, which has probably come in from central or eastern Europe. Therein lies the problem.
	I welcome the Government’s introduction of microchipping, but we have to make sure that it happens. Will those who breed puppies in their backyards and should not be breeding puppies be the sort of people who will microchip them? No, they will not.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend is making such a superb speech that I think we need to hear an extra minute, so may I ask him if he is aware of the work of wonderful charities such as Woofability in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Such charities train dogs beautifully to do tremendous work for disabled people, such as pulling their socks off, taking the washing out of the washing machine and all sorts of tasks that able-bodied people think nothing of doing, but which are of huge assistance to someone confined to a wheelchair?

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend highlights not only that dogs can help people with certain tasks that they are unable to do themselves, but that a dog is a part of the family and an individual’s life. For many elderly people, their dog becomes their life, so if they lose a dog and then buy the wrong type of puppy—it might be diseased or have huge behavioural problems—that becomes a serious social issue as well. It is imperative, therefore, that we deal with the situation.
	The Minister has many weapons in his armoury already, but there is not enough enforcement. Are we tracking vans coming through the ports of Dover and elsewhere with illegal puppies? Are we checking them? Do we know what is coming in? Are we checking the microchips already in dogs? According to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and Blue Cross, only a third of
	the microchips they see in puppies and dogs are accurate. Not only do puppies need to be properly microchipped, but we need a national database to trace where dogs have come from.
	If we ignore this situation, I fear it will get worse. People have got so used to buying clothes, shoes or whatever on the internet that unfortunately they think they can do the same with puppies. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have strongly made the argument that, for goodness sake, when someone buys a puppy, they should make sure they know where it has come from, have seen its mother, have seen where it has been bred and know how the mother behaved, so that they know what they are bringing into their home and can have a successful and loving pet. That is what people in this country believe in. The vast majority of people do a good job, but we have to stamp down hard on the rogues in our society.

Angela Smith: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate about the sale of puppies and kittens and the related issues of puppy farming and so on. Before I make my contribution, however, may I, like every other speaker, pay tribute to the Pup Aid campaign and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who has led the way in Parliament on this issue and has clearly illustrated today the problems we face in relation to the trade in the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens.
	As most colleagues have done today, I also pay tribute to Marc Abraham, the television vet, who has been tireless in his campaigning. I have worked with him closely over the past two years or so and can confirm that he has made a great contribution to this debate. It is impossible to be anything other than impressed by his commitment to the cause of animal welfare. Pup Aid has run a successful campaign, with over 100,000 signatures secured for its e-petition—hence the debate today. This itself is a testimony to the success of the campaign and the importance of the issues it raises, as is the number of right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed this afternoon. We have learned a great deal about colleagues’ opinions—and about their pets as well.
	The Government’s record on the issue is disappointing, but I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to correct that situation and do as the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) suggested and give us some positive movement. Puppy farming is widely perceived to be more and more of a problem, while the importation of puppies has increased massively in recent years. For example, in 2012 the importation of dogs from Hungary increased on the previous year by more than 450%, and from Romania by more than 1,150%. Coupled with these rises, the number of online sales of puppies and kittens has increased significantly, which must be a major concern to anybody who thinks that animal welfare is important, yet we have seen little response from the Government to this wide range of issues, which includes, of course, the sale of puppies and kittens in retail outlets.
	It is worse than that, however, because the Government have also failed properly to get to grips with wider dog welfare issues relating to dog control and responsible
	ownership. And although measures such as the prosecution of owners whose dogs attack on private property are welcome—indeed, we pressed for them—it has to be said that the Government dragged their feet and took far too long to get these measures on the statute book.
	If we are to respond effectively to problems with the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens, we need to take a comprehensive approach, because the challenges raised by the sale of puppies and kittens in pet shops represent only the tip of the iceberg in terms of concerns about animal welfare standards. As I have made clear, we need to look not just at the issue in the motion, but more broadly at breeding practices, the growing trade in online sales and issues arising out of the misuse of the pet travel scheme—PETS—by commercial puppy breeding interests.
	We are committed to doing just that and to working with animal welfare organisations and other stakeholders to review the trade in the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said. The Animal Welfare Act 2006, introduced by the last Labour Government, sets a useful benchmark for such a review, and Labour remains proud of what it achieved with this legislation. Importantly, for the first time it embedded in statute clear standards relating to the welfare of domestic animals. The five tests set out in the Act are now taken as a practical template for animal welfare assessment, and we will use this legislation as the starting point for our review.
	Today’s debate has given a necessary airing to the growing problem of the irresponsible breeding and sale of puppies and kittens, and many Members have made excellent contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) talked about problems with the importation of commercially bred dogs under PETS, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who also talked about the relationship between the puppy and the mother and the need for the mother to be present at the point of sale. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) talked about the emotional needs of puppies and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) talked about the measures being taken by the Welsh Assembly. We look forward to hearing more about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) talked about the trade in the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens and the need for the highest welfare standards.
	I want to conclude my remarks by paying tribute to the wider animal welfare movement, which has worked tirelessly to highlight the issues raised today, and indeed has attempted in some instances to establish creative responses to them. The RSPCA, for instance, has campaigned vigorously to draw attention to the abuse of the pets travel scheme, and has also worked hard to establish the case for a review of the current status of the standards applying to the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens. The Dogs Trust has led the way with its campaign for compulsory microchipping, and has played a key role within the Pet Advertising Advisory Group to establish new, higher standards for adverts on websites. May I also take this opportunity to mark, on the record, the outstanding contribution to dog welfare
	made by Clarissa Baldwin, the outgoing and long-serving—very long-serving—chief executive of the Dogs Trust?
	Finally, I pay tribute to the Kennel Club, which 10 years ago developed an assured breeder scheme that now has 8,000 members. The case for a comprehensive review of standards in the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens is clear—it must be a review that will have at its heart the welfare of these animals. They deserve nothing less, and as a society that prides itself on our attitudes towards animal welfare, we must not let them down.

George Eustice: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who I know has been a long-standing campaigner on these issues. I am sure he will recall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) said, that I pursued these issues when I was a member of the Select Committee. It would be remiss of me of not to mention Mono, my now deceased pet dog. He was a rescue dog from the RSPCA who, like many others, was a wonderfully dedicated friend, albeit with some behavioural issues.
	Let me deal first with some of the issues on which the Government have made progress—tackling irresponsible owners, for example. We have increased the penalty for serious dog attacks and have made it an offence to have a dog attack on private land. We have tightened the law, too, when it comes to dog attacks on guide dogs, and we have introduced compulsory chipping. I recognise, however, that today’s theme has been about a different issue—the welfare of puppies. I have always been clear that we must look after the welfare of puppies and ensure that they are properly socialised. As many hon. Members have mentioned, that is crucial for the behaviour of the dogs as they grow up and mature.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) asked me to tear up my script and speak from the heart. I can confirm that I never asked for a script in the first place. I scribbled some notes of what Members said, and I want to use the available time to deal with as many points as I can.
	On pet passports, I can confirm that a new EU regulation is tightening the rules of the EU pet passport scheme. From December this year, it will no longer be possible for a dog under 12 weeks to be vaccinated prior to transportation under the scheme. There is then a three-week period throughout which the puppy must remain in residence before it can be moved. In practice, that means that from December this year, no puppy or dog can be lawfully transported to this country under the pet passport scheme unless it is at least 15 weeks old.
	Many hon. Members rightly raised the issue of the internet. The biggest concerns put to us by the animal welfare charities related not so much to the problem of puppy farms as to that of backstreet breeders that are completely unregulated and unlicensed. In many cases, the people involved are not the right people to be breeding dogs at all, and in the worst cases, they maltreat
	the puppies deliberately to make them violent by giving them violent traits—the so-called “status dogs”. That is a major concern, which is why at the end of last year, my noble Fried Lord de Mauley brought together a group in connection with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group to put in place a voluntary code, which has been running since the beginning of the year. I can tell hon. Members today that, since that code was put in place, 100,000 adverts have been removed from the internet. I pay tribute to the work done by the internet companies that acted so responsibly and by all the volunteers who took part in monitoring the internet for that purpose. Given the scale of the problem, I hope hon. Members will understand that making further progress on the internet continues to be our main priority.
	Let me touch on the contentious issue of the five-litter threshold, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She is right. When I sat on the Committee, we highlighted some concerns about the five-litter threshold being too high. Hon. Members who follow what has happened will know that the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 states that anyone carrying on a business of breeding and selling puppies must have a licence, irrespective of the number of litters. However, a second clause, always intended as an anti-avoidance clause, said that irrespective of who owns the puppies on a particular premise, a licence is compulsory if there are more than five litters. That was to prevent people from claiming that some of dogs belonged to their brothers, sisters, father or whoever.
	Over the last few years, however, or since the legislation was introduced, it has been apparent that local authorities have taken the five-litter threshold to be the one to work towards. It became something of a mystery, which we managed to solve last night. The reason is that in 1999 when the Act was put in place under the last Government, the Home Office sent out a circular indicating for local authorities that in most situations five litters should be taken as the threshold to use.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?

George Eustice: Let me finish the point. Since that time, it would be fair to say—from all the representations made during today’s debate and from the recommendations of the Select Committee—that this is the wrong way to interpret the legislation. Those carrying on a business of breeding and selling dogs should be required to have a licence. I can confirm that we will write to local authorities to provide new clarity through new guidance so that they can interpret the Act in the spirit intended by the House today.
	Pet shops are a key item of today’s debate. It is important to recognise that only about 2% of pet shops sell cats and dogs—around 70 in total—and they are already regulated and licensed. They are regulated under the Pet Animals Act 1951. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South asked me to clarify whether local authorities have the additional power to place restrictions on which animals can be sold at a licensed pet shop establishment. I can confirm that they do have that power to restrict the number of animals that can be sold. He asked, too, about the issue of ambiguity and contestability in that context. Let me clarify that the intention of the provision is for local authorities to judge on a case-by-case basis whether a particular premise is suitable for a
	particular animal to be sold. It is not necessary for local authorities to change the law; it is for them to have considerable discretion in making a judgment about whether it is appropriate for certain animals to be sold on the authority’s premises.
	The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) made the important point that much can be done within the existing regulations. I agree. In January this year, along with the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and many other charities and organisations, we contributed to some model licence conditions that were made available to all local authorities and were published by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. These included 50 pages of recommendations about the sorts of conditions that should be included in a licence for dog-breeding premises. There were strict provisions on the need for social interaction with humans, which should apply for the whole day if the buyers were present all the time.
	In addition, in September 2013 we published the model conditions for pet vending, which also set out strict conditions for pet shops about the need for interaction with staff and humans. It is specifically recommended that at least four times a day a human should spend at least 20 minutes with the puppies on sale. We have already put in place important guidance on these issues.
	I would like to conclude by saying that we have had a really important debate. I, too, have received many hundreds of letters on the issue and it is clearly of great importance to the country. We have 8 million dogs in this country and we are a nation of animal lovers.

John McDonnell: Before the Minister concludes, will he respond on the issue of local authority resources, which was raised by several Members?

George Eustice: All I can say on that issue is that the internet will make it easier for some local authorities to identify where they have a problem. One thing we have done in the new code, agreed with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, is provide that where a licence is held it must be advertised, and where it is not held contact details should be advertised. That gives local authorities a ready way to identify where they have the most serious problems.
	In conclusion, we have had a good and important debate. The Government are committed to improving animal welfare, as I am personally. I hope that my comments today will help reassure the House that the Government are doing a considerable amount to move this item forward.

Robert Flello: First, I congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate on the important contribution they have made to moving this issue forward. I hope that the weight of feeling we have heard expressed in this Chamber sends a clear message—I think the Minister has heard it—that more needs to be done now. I welcome the clarification that local authorities can act where they feel it is inappropriate for pet shops to sell puppies and kittens. If I heard
	correctly, they can use the powers under the 1951 Act, if they decide to do so, to stop that. May I urge him to write to those local authorities, perhaps in conjunction with the Department for Communities and Local Government, to point out to them that they have that ability?
	Let me use the 1951 Act to highlight something. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have said that the legislation is fine and that this is just a matter of enforcement, but the legislation is not fine. The 1951 Act does not talk about socialisation—the guidance might, but the Act does not require socialisation. It also does not make provision in respect of emotional needs, although the guidance mentions a total of 80 minutes a day. The Act does not talk about those things, and it does not deal with puppies and kittens being taken from their mums at four weeks—certainly earlier than eight weeks—or with the question, “Where’s mum?” One message I want to get across is, “If that genuinely is not the mum of the litter of kittens or puppies, do not touch it with a bargepole. Think very carefully about where you are doing your shopping.”
	The debate has covered a wide spectrum of issues: irresponsible breeders, microchipping, the internet, foreign imports, the requirements of legislation and the requirements of enforcement. I know from my conversations with Labour’s Front-Bench team, and with a host of the charities that have been talked about today, that there is a willingness to work with the Government and alongside DEFRA to get this right and get it sorted.
	Finally, may I close by paying tribute to the fantastic work done by Marc and Pup Aid and to all the charities that have been cited today? This is the start; this is the foot in the door. We need to do a lot more for the sake of all the puppies and kittens—and their mothers—that are leading horrendous lives and being raised in the most cruel conditions. Although this is just the start and there is much more to do, I thank everyone for today’s debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee. I look forward to pestering it in future for yet more debates on this issue, although I hope I will not need them because the Minister will hear what we have said and make sure that we work further together.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the e-petition relating to the sale of young puppies and kittens; notes that puppies produced at large-scale commercial breeding establishments, known as puppy farms, and irresponsibly-bred kittens are separated from their mothers too early and often transported long distances, and as a result often suffer serious life-threatening problems including impaired immune systems, poor socialisation, infectious diseases and shorter life spans; calls on the Government to review existing legislation to ensure that it is consistent with its own guidance that prospective owners should always see the puppy or kitten with its mother, and to ban the sale of puppies and kittens from retail centres such as pet shops, garden centres or puppy supermarkets; further notes the support of the Blue Cross, Dog Rescue Federation, Dogs Advisory Council, Dogs Trust, The Kennel Club, RSPCA and others for such a ban; and further calls on the Government and welfare organisations to work together to raise awareness among the public about choosing a dog responsibly from only ethical breeders or by adoption from legitimate rescue organisations, and to consider further steps to end the cruel practice of irresponsible and unethical breeding of puppies and kittens in the UK.

Non-league Football

Mr Speaker: For the benefit of the House, I remind colleagues that after the proposer has finished his speech there is a limit of five minutes on each Back-Bench speech. There is also an informal hope or expectation that the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) will be able to confine his remarks to approximately 10 minutes, but I am in his hands.

Jesse Norman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall endeavour to comply with that informal guidance.
	First, may I thank all those who have supported this important debate on the future of non-league football? I thank the Backbench Business Committee and colleagues across the House today for taking part and for other work they have done on football issues. I also thank the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport; Supporters Direct, which has provided tremendous additional help; and, above all, the Hereford United Supporters Trust, the Hereford United Independent Supporters Association, the dozens of Herefordians who have shared their feelings and views with me, and the thousands more who have poured their passion and commitment into the local game in Herefordshire over many years.
	You do not have to be a football supporter to know how important this game is to the people of Great Britain. Every week during the season hundreds of thousands of people turn out to watch premiership and football league games, and millions more watch at home or catch up with the highlights. Football is the lifeblood of many of our towns and cities: it is what parents and kids do on a Saturday afternoon; and it is the subject of endless banter and gossip during the week. But the premiership and the football league are just the glamour at the top. There is huge activity below the surface, in non-league and grass-roots football. It is very easy to forget the significance of those parts of the game, and the roles those clubs play in the community and their importance in seeding the players and supporters of tomorrow.
	That carries with it a crucial point: football clubs are not purely private organisations. They are not merely the private playthings of their owners—they are public as well. What gives the clubs their life and energy, even in the premiership, is the passion and love of their fans. I am talking about supporters who turn out every week, who yell their heads off at the match, who make the trek to away games and who buy the season tickets and the merchandise. So it is entirely appropriate that Parliament should take an interest in football and, specifically today, in non-league football: how it is funded, regulated and managed, balancing private interests with the public interest.
	In large part I have called this debate to focus public attention on what has happened at Hereford United, which has been the result of a disastrous catalogue of mismanagement and poor regulation. We will come to that, but first I want to look to the good. In Herefordshire, despite many competing sports and other outdoor activities, the high cost of coaching and a shortage of access to good pitches, the non-league and grass-roots game is flourishing. We have 42 grass-roots senior football teams,
	some 150 junior teams, a schools league and midweek leisure games. Every weekend during the season about 2,000 youngsters between the ages of nine and 16 turn out in teams such as Ross Juniors in Ross-on-Wye and Pegasus Juniors in Hereford. Over the summer some 78 girls took part in girls week football, and I had the privilege of barbecuing several hundredweight of sausages for the different nationalities’ teams in the first-ever Herefordshire world cup in July.
	The issue of finance is a very important one, and I know colleagues will have a lot to say about it—indeed, it deserves a separate debate in its own right. But it is important to recognise the £1.4 million in Premier League, Football Association and Government grants that has been given to grass-roots football in Herefordshire since 2000 and the further £240,000 that has been received from the Football Stadia Improvement Fund, which is funded entirely by the Premier League. As always, however, what really matters is community spirit and local organisation. I pay tribute to Jim Lambert and the Herefordshire Football Association, whose president is a distinguished former Member of this House, my predecessor but one, Sir Colin Shepherd. I also pay a special tribute to all those who play in these teams, to the families who support them and to the volunteers who give up their time to referee games and organise the league. Many of those people have supported and nurtured football in Herefordshire for generations.
	Much of that good news has been cast into the shadows by events at Hereford United, which have been a catastrophe for the club, for the city, for the county and for Bulls fans everywhere. This debate has special significance for Herefordians, because the terrible truth is that our club, my club, Hereford United—the club of Ronnie Radford and what has been described as the most famous goal in FA Cup history, against Newcastle United; the goal that launched the career of John Motson—with its famous tradition and international name, in the year of its 90th anniversary, is likely to go into insolvency next Monday, with a court judgment on its outstanding debts.
	How did that occur? How has a club that was solvent and competitive three years ago suddenly found itself on the brink of annihilation? It is a long and tortuous saga, which I will not recount here, but let me tell the House that Hereford United stand as a case study in mismanagement and poor regulation, of a kind all too prevalent in lower league and non-league football.
	In 2008-09 Hereford United were playing in league one against teams such as Leicester City, now in the premier league, and Leeds United, currently in the championship. They were relegated to league two in 2009 and to the football conference in 2012. That is when the financial problems began to bite. Their share of rights income dropped from £750,000 a year to a tiny £50,000. That was offset by a parachute payment of £215,000, much less even than one year’s drop in rights income, much of which will have been returned to clubs in the league and to the FA itself.
	The 2013-14 season was beset by financial crises but the fans rallied, funds were raised to see off the threat of a series of winding-up petitions and Hereford United secured an astonishing last-gasp 2-1 victory over Aldershot, thus narrowly managing to avoid relegation. However,
	in June, Mr Thomas Agombar became the 57% owner of Hereford United. When he arrived at the club, he reassured staff that
	“all payments and wages due to themselves, players and football creditors would be paid in full this week, subject to Conference status”.
	Despite those promises and the deadline for payment being extended three times, Hereford United failed to pay their football creditors and failed to post the bond as required under conference rules. They were then expelled from the conference on 10 June 2014. That created, indeed reinforced, the strong impression locally that Mr Agombar was less interested in football than in taking over leases to the Edgar Street ground and using them for commercial development. We now know he met repeatedly with Herefordshire council, which to its credit has taken no steps to allow him use of the leases.
	There was also immediate local concern about the suitability of Mr Agombar to own a football club, not least because he has convictions for conspiracy to steal and theft. Furthermore, two other directors appeared likely to fail the FA’s owners and directors test. One, Mr Philip Gambrill, was subject to an individual voluntary arrangement and another, Mr Thomas Agombar Jr, had been banned by Essex County FA.
	I wrote to the Football Association in early June, asking it to consider whether Mr Agombar met the requirements of the owners and directors fit and proper test. However, perhaps because of the World cup, it was difficult to get a rapid response from the FA, despite the answer being vital to Hereford United’s survival. Indeed it was not until 4 August, some six weeks later, that the FA finally confirmed to me that Mr Agombar Sr had failed the test, along with Mr Agombar Jr and Mr Gambrill. Even then, despite my repeated requests and warning of the reputational risks to the FA itself, the FA refused publicly to announce the results of the test. It pleaded confidentiality, although the club was even then in negotiations over a company voluntary agreement, with Mr Gambrill’s name on the CVA document. It took until 12 August for news that Mr Agombar and those two other directors had failed the test to be made public. I must tell the House that the FA has still not made a statement on the matter. Not only that: the Southern League accepted Hereford United as a member in mid-June, despite the fact that it is supposed to abide by FA rules and that Mr Agombar had not passed, and as it proved would never pass, the fit and proper test.
	This whole fiasco raises very serious issues about governance and the need for greater transparency; about funding and financial fair play; about the negative effects of the football creditors rule; and about the importance of supporters’ trusts. I would encourage the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport to revisit in the next Parliament its 2011 report on football governance to reconsider some of the issues.
	Today I want to focus on the FA’s fit and proper test and how that was administered. How could it be right for the FA to refuse to publish the results, which were clearly material to a proceeding in court? The creditors should have been immediately informed, so that they could judge the CVA in that light. Some of those were football creditors, to whom the FA arguably owed a special duty of care. I can see no reason why the FA should not be able to make public in a timely fashion whether an individual submitted the relevant form for
	the owners and directors test; and whether, if they have, they passed the test. After all, this is the practice in the parallel case of financial services and, although that industry is no poster child for good regulation—goodness knows that is true—its approach has been proven to deter some very dodgy individuals from seeking senior positions.
	Moreover, how can people who buy shares in football clubs be able to register their directorship with Companies House when they have not passed the test? Surely people who would be likely to fail the test should not be allowed even to get to that stage. The FA, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Companies House should work much more closely to identify potentially unsuitable club shareholders, owners and directors as soon as they appear.

Ian Lucas: I have listened closely to the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. Wrexham has had similar experiences, and the club has gone through a very difficult period. I am interested in what he has said, and he has come to the nub of the matter. Regulation must precede ownership. The key decision on whether someone is a fit and proper person must be made by the FA before it sanctions any transfer in ownership. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that does not happen.

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He makes a proposal that has been scouted before but needs to be examined more closely. There is a tie-in to a wider question: should there be a licensing regime for clubs? That is worth exploring.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is doing a fantastic job in laying out this sad story of mismanagement. Does he agree that the FA’s failure lets down not just football but the people we all represent, the people who go to watch football every week, the people who really care? It is they who have been most bitterly let down. Some of them work for the club and will not receive the money they are owed.

Jesse Norman: As my hon. Friend knows, it is likely that many of the creditors, including football creditors, at Hereford United will never be paid. He raises a serious issue. I am not by any means critical of the FA as such; I think that many of the things it does are good. There is a specific issue in relation to the owners and directors test that I want to focus on. Serious concerns exist in that regard.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Mr Peter Kneale, company secretary of Prescot Cables in my constituency, has contacted me to make three suggestions. I would be interested in the hon. Gentleman’s response to them. The first is that admission to non-league matches below conference level should be exempt from VAT. The second is that non-league clubs could automatically be given exemption from the business rate. The third is that the Government look at giving greater flexibility to the community amateur sports clubs scheme to help clubs. Does he think, as I do, that those are sensible suggestions?

Jesse Norman: That is a formidable array of questions. May I respond briefly? As a member of the Treasury Committee, I am a bit leery of exemptions from VAT
	because I know how hard it is to recover those funds elsewhere and the precedent that they tend to set. On the issue of business rates, this is a local issue and councils should be encouraged to look closely at questions as they specifically arise. On the final issue, anything that the Government can do to support and enhance community ownership of supporter-led clubs would be valuable. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point.
	As I have said, the FA, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Companies House should work much more closely to identify potentially unsuitable club shareholders, owners and directors as soon as they appear. Incredible as it sounds, as we debate today, Mr Andrew Lonsdale, a long-time associate of Mr Agombar, is the current chairman of Hereford United, despite a criminal conviction in 2008 and despite being disqualified at Companies House from 2006 to 2012. That raises in the starkest possible form the question, how on earth have the football authorities allowed such a person to be a club chairman?
	Will the Minister write to the FA asking it to demand answers to those questions, and in particular to demand early completion—or pre-registration, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) mentioned—by potential owners and directors of the fit and proper test and rapid publication thereafter, so that we all know who has put up for it and who has passed or failed?

Ian Mearns: As a Newcastle and a Gateshead fan, I remember those ventures in the past with some pain, I am afraid to say. Because of the lack of oversight and transparency that the hon. Gentleman is in essence saying the FA has demonstrated, does he not think the FA itself is guilty of what it often accuses others of doing: bringing the game into disrepute by its lack of oversight of football management?

Jesse Norman: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think there was an expectation or hope that we can start the last debate no later than 4 o’clock. We are all enjoying the informative and learned speech of the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and he will continue it until he has concluded, but I should just point out that there are 11 hon. Members who also wish to contribute.

Jesse Norman: I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and I am about to wind up, but I am also grateful for the intervention and I can only sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s pain, still felt in many parts of Newcastle, as a result of that great goal. I think there is a degree of truth in his question. It is a balanced judgment, and if I may, I will leave it there.
	Will the Minister write to the Football Association and other relevant authorities, requesting that they investigate the rules which may have been contravened by Hereford United and its owners and directors recently, and in particular how Hereford United was allowed entry into the Southern League without Mr Agombar passing the owner and directors test and despite its failure to pay its football creditors, and whether Mr Andrew Lonsdale’s continued role as club chairman is in contravention of existing rules?
	Hereford United’s motto is “Our greatest glory lies not in never having fallen, but in rising when we fall.” The situation there has been a tragedy for everyone who loves the club, but there might be some small comfort for fans if it now leads to genuine and sustained improvements in the non-league game.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches starts now.

John Mann: I am sure the FA is listening in and I have a few suggestions for it. The first point is that it cannot fill Wembley—it could not last night and Mr Roy Hodgson says it cannot be filled for all the England qualifiers—yet I have a load of kids in my constituency who have never been to a major sporting event of any kind. I am prepared to provide the buses and raise the money to enable them to do that, if the FA will give me the tickets, and I will fill Wembley on my own, every time, with kids from Bassetlaw, including kids who play for Worksop Town. I am prepared to do that for all the England qualifiers, and, indeed, any other major sporting event that needs some noise, passion and support.
	We have 600 kids who play for Worksop Town alone, and those kids—boys and girls—say to me, “I’ll wear the shirt of my town.” Well, if we think the situation is bad in Hereford, I can say that the situation at Worksop Town is worse, because we cannot even go insolvent. At Worksop Town, the owner announced just before the start of the football season that he was putting no more money in. The directors—including the chairman, whom he appointed—immediately put the club into football abeyance; they said, “We’re not going to play any more, anywhere, ever.” There were some quick interventions, but they also wrote a letter withdrawing from the league. So without the fans or anyone else having a say, Worksop Town goes down a league, and when I go to the FA, it says, “Well, it’s too late; the letter’s gone in.” I say, “Well, what’s the fear?” and the FA says, “The owner won’t put any money in. The owner owns all the shares in the club.”
	So I look at the club accounts. They show that Worksop Town’s assets are worth £669, because the previous owner somehow managed to get rid of the ground, so the club owns no ground; it owns nothing despite having been there since 1861. Yet with a turnover of £101,000, the new owner is apparently owed half a million pounds. He owns the club, however; he took it over. He decided, I think, that he was going to put some money in, and it is down in the accounts as administrative expenses. Last year, on a turnover of £101,000, there were admin expenses of £223,000, and the same the year before. That is down to an unnamed creditor, and I think that is Mr Jason Clark, the owner. I think he decided, “I’ll put money in, but I’ll put it in as a loan,” and then he said, “I’m not putting any more in, but I want someone to buy the club off me.” But the club has no assets—yet there are all these kids wanting to play, and go up and play for the full team.
	Some are doing so, because we have managed to do a few little deals on the side, using the supporters trust. We have sorted a bit out. We have got support from the
	community. Mr Lee Westwood has put in some sponsorship, and Mr Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden has put his hand in his pocket as a Worksop lad, and Mr Graham Taylor, former England manager, and many supporters have put in, but they are having to put into the supporters trust because they cannot put into the club, because the club owes money, because the owner has decided to put in money that no one asked him to lend but he put it in as a loan.
	What can the FA do about that? The answer is, at the moment, it can do nothing. It ought to be feasible in that situation for us to set up a new club, with the players and the managers and the supporters in support, and for the FA to recognise that club, and for that club to play in the same league. I am sure then, with helpful council support and support from private business and the rest—there is plenty of good will—we can build a new ground as we built the old one with the help of the fans. I am confident of that. Therefore, those 600 kids can aspire again, and we can have what we want in the town, which is everyone being proud of the name of the club and all those kids and people in the community being able to play. That is the kind of change that is needed in football.
	If a party wants an idea for its manifesto, I suggest that in football the youth side and the stadium should be separated out from the semi-professional side. We should not be giving Government money or any other money if that can be siphoned off by an owner.

Ian Mearns: In future where clubs find themselves without a ground to play in, if the stadium still exists might we be able to find some mechanism for getting the supporters trust to be allowed to recognise and register the ground and stadium as an asset of community value?

John Mann: Absolutely, and we have got a community interest company and if we had a stadium, it would be in the CIC—and when we have a stadium, it will be in. I am sure I can get a stadium built; I am confident of that, but it will be owned by a CIC, and who will play at it? The owner will have a veto, because the FA will let the owner have a veto. We could set up an alternative club, but it has to start right down at the bottom. That is nonsense.
	These rules will be simple to sort out, and we should use the leverage of any money that goes in—state money of whatever form, whether grant money or Football Foundation money via the Premier League and the rest of them, or whether section 106 agreements, which is one way in which we can develop a stadium with relative ease in Worksop over the next couple of years. Those guarantees need to be there, but the FA rules need to ensure that if we do this, we can ring fence it. That should be for all clubs, and, by the way, this is not just about the FA, because if we are dealing with the FA, I can get to the FA. But if we are dealing with the blazers running these leagues, with the power to decide who is in and who is out, we cannot even get to find out who they are, never mind get to meet them.
	That is the problem with football. It is a great challenge, but I believe there are solutions there, and obvious ones if people are prepared to act. The whole country would be behind that kind of action.

Andrew Bingham: This is an incredibly important debate, because it is really important that non-league football should survive. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing the debate. My knowledge of non-league football goes back to about 1973, when I started watching Buxton, and I wear my Buxton football club tie today with pride. I remember when Buxton won the Cheshire league, and I was a member of the committee that ran the club in the early 1990s. I used to travel to home and away matches.
	The thing about non-league football is that it binds communities; it binds towns and areas together. When we used to go to watch Buxton, we used to travel up to Morecambe in the north-west. I can see the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) in his place, and I can also remember many a famous victory at Bower Fold. I remember an auspicious 3-2 win in which I still reckon that the guys behind the goal got the penalty that won the match, but that is another story.
	It was about the community. We used to go to matches, and we used to go into the bar beforehand and talk to the opposing supporters. We used to sit there and chew the fat about the good of non-league football and about how our team was better and their team was worse. It was a day out and it bound the community together. I remember the non-league football annual guide coming out at the beginning of each year, and I would buy my copy and tick off the grounds that I had been to. And people might think I am sad, but I always used to have season ticket No. 1 at Buxton. That is the kind of thing that non-league football does to people.
	I recently went with my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)—who I believe is wearing his Swindon Supermarine tie today—to watch that team play, and I was very much reminded of Buxton. I shall also talk about Glossop North End in a moment. This is about local people working together for the good of the community and the good of the club. We see people rolling the ground and marking the pitch. Some of the white lines might not be very straight, but the work gets done, and it is done by local volunteers.
	I look at non-league football today and I worry. I remember the day when Goole Town came to play Buxton, and they had Tony Currie playing for them. He looked like he had had a few more curries by then, but it was still Tony Currie. Even then, he had fantastic ball control. I think he still has—I do not know if he is watching this.

Nigel Adams: I am sure that Tony Currie will be very grateful to my hon. Friend for that. He was an example of a player coming down from the higher leagues to play in non-league football. I remember watching Goole Town, freezing my toes off, as a youngster. We had a player called Tony Galvin—does my hon. Friend remember him?—who was sold to Tottenham Hotspur for £5,000. That was a huge amount of money for Goole Town. On a more serious point, does my hon. Friend feel that the obsession on the part of the larger clubs to import players from abroad denies that revenue to non-league clubs and denies their players the opportunity to get into the professional league?

Andrew Bingham: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He talks about freezing his toes off. He should try watching Buxton in February, playing on the highest football ground in England. He would freeze more than his toes off, I can assure him. The point he makes is absolutely right. We sold Ally Pickering to Rotherham—I think the fee was about £16,000—and Rotherham then sold him on to Coventry City, for which Buxton received a fee. That brought extra capital into the club. My hon. Friend is right: we now have what Alan Sugar used to call the Carlos Kickaballs coming into the premier league, plugging the gap through which footballers used to go up the pyramid, as well as coming down it. I am afraid that the days of old professionals playing at non-league football clubs are gone, and that is very sad.

Jesse Norman: I wonder, in view of the comments about my hon. Friend’s toes, whether we are in fact re-enacting Monty Python’s “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch.

Andrew Bingham: I can assure my hon. Friend that it was pure luxury!
	We also had cup runs. I mentioned Glossop North End, who got to the final of the FA Vase in 2009. That gripped the town of Glossop. There was a train that went from Glossop, with seven or nine carriages. We got on the train at Glossop and—for those whose geography is pretty good—we got to Manchester after about two hours. Then we had to come all the way down to Wembley. The sense of occasion on that train was fantastic. At the time, I was a member of High Peak borough council. It was the first time I had been to the new Wembley stadium and, regrettably, there were not quite as many people there as there were last night, although we were not far short. Afterwards, we decided to organise an open-top bus parade for the team, even though they had not won the trophy. I remember that the streets were lined with people, and there was a fantastic community spirit. We just do not get that with the glitz and glory of the premier league.
	For those who cannot sleep tonight, if they read my profile on any website they will see that I prefer football at non-league level because it is the glory game, the people’s game—call it what you will. That is what football is about. Whether it be Glossop North End or Buxton or New Mills in my constituency, it is all about the proper game of football. The premier league has its place and it does a great job, but I prefer non-league football because of what it does for communities. We hear a lot about local activism and people helping each other. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has just walked into the Chamber; he has been to Buxton with me, and I am sure he remembers it with fondness.

Chris Heaton-Harris: indicated dissent.

Andrew Bingham: My hon. Friend shakes his head, but it is the people’s game, the glory game. It is about the lads and the dads. It does not cost a father and his son £100 to go and watch a match. They can go to a match and have their Bovril and their pie and peas at half time. Anyone who watched non-league football knew that the best pies were at Frickley Athletic, and that Horwich RMI was the place to go for hotpot. We knew all those things; that was what football was all about.
	That is why it is crucial that non-league football should survive. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, it gives young lads who want to play football a chance to rise to their level, and they might make it. They might be another Ally Pickering who goes on to play first division or premier league football. They can play football at their level, and they can play it for love. People can also watch non-league football for love, and they can afford to do so.
	The contrast with premiership football is huge. We hear of premiership footballers earning £300,000 a week, but we need to get more money down to the non-league clubs to help support them. I heard the earlier comments about VAT and community amateur sports clubs. In my days on the committee in Buxton, I remember having to wrestle with the vagaries of the tax system and all the rest of it. Many people who are involved in non-league football, particularly lower down the pyramid, are doing it for the love of the game. If we can make it easier for them to run these clubs, it is better for the communities and better for the game.
	I know which non-leagues teams I have watched. I can pretty much name the Cheshire league winning side of 1973—apart from a couple whom I am not sure about. It is in the blood; people find it stays with them. They still look for their local team’s results. It is different with premiership footballers. I notice when Chelsea are doing well because there are a lot of Chelsea shirts about. I am a Manchester City fan and have been for a long time. There are a lot more City fans now than there were when they were playing in the old third division. Non-league football always stays with its fans, which is why its future is incredibly important.
	Before I sit down, let me just mention football for people of a more senior age. The Minister will no doubt say this, but only this week we had a walking football match here in London between the Glossop Gentlemen and the Parliamentarians. Again, it is something that gets people involved in the game and pulls communities together. Non-league football is incredibly important and we must do all we can to support it both for us and our constituents. I hope, in a few years’ time, to be able to stand up and remind the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde how, once again, Buxton have given Stalybridge Celtic a good thrashing.

Derek Twigg: Let me congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on his thoughtful and passionate speech, especially with regard to the club that he supports. It is great that we are having this debate, because non-league football is important to our country and our communities—indeed the point about the importance of community involvement has been made. Of course non-league football gives so much pleasure around the country to hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people.
	I am fortunate because Halton has two clubs—Runcorn Linnets FC and Runcorn Town—both of which are doing very well and are in the premier division of the North West Counties League. Runcorn Linnets were formed in 2006 by fans of what was then the defunct Runcorn football club. I can remember the joy on the faces of the fans and the chairman, Derek Greenwood, on the day it was reformed.
	Non-league football has existed in Runcorn since 1918. I am pleased to say that Runcorn Linnets FC now have a brand-new stadium, which was the result of a combination of efforts from the supporters, the chairman and his committee, the borough council, which played a pivotal role, and the local Members of Parliament who supported it. I was there on the opening day to see the inaugural match. Up to 1,000 people actually watched the game that day. We are really proud to have two teams in that league.
	Runcorn Town is the other team— I am trying to be as even-handed as possible here, as we have two teams in Halton—and they were formed in 1967 under the name of Mond Rangers. They were a well-known and famous football club in the area. Ahead of the 2005-06 season, they changed their name to Runcorn Town and improved their facilities. Their club site is at the popular Pavilions Club in Runcorn. Again, the supporters play a pivotal role in its success, and I am pleased that the club has done so well since it became Runcorn Town.
	Currently, both clubs are in the top half of the league, with Runcorn Linnets at the top and Runcorn Town seventh. The matches between them are always interesting and competitive, often bringing in crowds of more than 500 plus. There is good support in the town for both clubs, and I am really proud to see them doing so well. Those clubs play an important role in our communities, and will continue to go from strength to strength. I hope to see more and more local people going along to support them.
	It is difficult for such clubs, because Halton is between Manchester and Liverpool so we have four of the biggest clubs in the country, Liverpool, Everton, Manchester United and Manchester City, which means that it is always difficult to attract supporters. However, the clubs in Halton are doing that and I think that big clubs should do more to support the smaller clubs through marketing and helping them to get more supporters. It is always a struggle for the clubs that are sandwiched between these massive world-famous clubs and we must take note of that.
	As I come from Widnes, on the other side the river—I am very proud to represent both Widnes and Runcorn —I should mention briefly that although it is a rugby league town, of course, football has been played there at an amateur level for many years and is very popular. In fact, a Widnes club has even been formed as part of the Widnes Vikings sports brand. I hope that it does well, too.
	I am very proud of the two Runcorn clubs in particular. Football is such an important part of the community in Halton and many young people and adults play the game. As we know, it is one of the most popular sports around. I have been written to by Dave Bettley of Runcorn Linnets FC, who is the trust secretary. He raises some important points about the role of supporters’ trusts, which, as we all know, are very important, about the tax and revenue system—we know about that from our earlier discussions about VAT exemptions, business rates and what help can be given when clubs get into trouble—about the football creditors rule, about the financial viability of football clubs and about the transparency of club ownership, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members today.
	This is been an important debate and I am glad to have been able to raise the issues and explain the importance of the clubs in my community. I am sure the debate will add to our understanding.

Martin Vickers: The main focus of my contribution to the debate will be to highlight the importance of a football club to the local community, where it can achieve much more than just entertaining the fans every couple of weeks. This debate shows clearly that just because a team is not in the football league does not mean that it cannot contribute greatly to the local community. I am a Grimsby Town supporter, and they are temporarily residing in the conference—but, as I say, that is only temporary.
	Grimsby are unusual in that they always play away from home, as their ground is in Cleethorpes. I share with thousands of others concern about what happens at Blundell Park each week. It is not just important to football supporters; the local club is part of the local identity. It is tribal, although we might still support other teams. When I was a schoolboy, Tottenham were the team and I can still reel off the team that won the double in 1961—Brown, Baker, Henry, and so on.
	My close association with the Mariners, as they are known, began long before my father started taking me to the match. Indeed, my first home at 11 Fuller street in Cleethorpes was about 200 yards from the goal at the Osmond stand at the Cleethorpes end, so I could hear the cheers and groans from the terraces. Long before my father got home and—in those pre-local radio days—before “Out of the Blue”, the famous theme tune for “Sports Report”, came out of the ether to herald the first reading of the classified football results, I would know by the cheers who had won.
	It is a matter of regret that my first public appearance after my election in May 2010 was at the game against Burton Albion, which resulted in Grimsby Town dropping out of the football league and into the conference. That followed a proud history in which the Mariners managed to reach fifth in the old first division in the 1930s and appearances at Wembley at which they won such august trophies as the Auto Windscreens trophy. We had a number of semi-final appearances, one of which was against Wolves. At that game on 25 March 1939, we set a ground attendance record at Old Trafford that, I am pleased to say, still stands; for the aficionados, it was 76,962. Sadly, because of an injury to our goalkeeper we let Wolves slip five goals past us but, other than that, I am sure that it was a great day out for those who were fortunate enough to be there.
	Like the majority of clubs at different levels, Grimsby’s survival has depended over the years on a number of generous individuals but surely the important thing is that they keep faith with their local fans. Grimsby is their club. The club’s role in the community is of major significance. The Grimsby Town sports and education trust is a registered charity and among the projects it delivers is one with the National Citizen Service. I was fortunate, last Thursday evening, to be a speaker and to present certificates at this year’s graduation ceremony. The mayor of North East Lincolnshire, another of the speakers, drew attention to the fact that we often hear the promotion of the big society, but the NCS not only
	seeks to address a range of social problems concerning young people, but influences their attitudes to civil and civic society. The young people last Thursday evening were a credit to their families and the local community. Could that have happened without the involvement of the football club? Of course, but the club is an attraction, particularly for youngsters, especially when players become involved. Credit should go to Shaun Pearson, the player-ambassador, who was present last Thursday evening.
	It is an added bonus to have a league club, but it is important that what goes on in the community around the club is recognised. Grimsby Town tell me about an anomaly, which I shall shortly be writing to the Minister about. My understanding is that there is currently an automatic core payment to the community departments of football clubs, to the tune of £30,000. At the time Grimsby left the football league, that was £24,000, with a 50% reduction for the first year only. That parachute payment is then lost, so that the funding to community departments ceases immediately the club leaves the football league. There are funds available for specific projects, but it does suggest a degree of injustice when a community department, the work of which can have a significant off-field positive impact on its parent club’s catchment area, is penalised—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Jonathan Reynolds: I am delighted to be able to speak in today’s debate, coming as it does just two days before non-league day. I add my tribute to the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for securing the debate and for his speech. I am proud to have three non-league teams in my constituency—a number that very few Members can boast. I hope to be able to raise some of their concerns today, but I also want to provide some background to them, as they are all proud clubs whose story deserves to be told.
	First there is Hyde FC, formerly known as Hyde United. Hyde are fresh from a two-year spell at non-league football’s highest level, after winning the conference north in 2012, playing the type of attractive, pass-and-move football that the World cup-winning Spain side would have been proud of. However, it is fair to say that times have become slightly tougher recently, with only one win in our last 48 games. It could be worse, though, as the team hold the record for the highest defeat in an English competitive match—a 26-0 thrashing by Preston North End way back in 1887. It is worth remembering, though, that Preston were probably the best side in the world at that time. The club have also recently become something of a Twitter sensation, with almost 45,000 followers, which has helped them crowdfund £10,000 for much-needed work on their social club. I am sure that good times are again just around the corner.
	There is also Stalybridge Celtic, an ex-league club back in the 1920s, who play at the impressive and idyllic Bower Fold stadium, nestled in the foothills of the Pennines, with a stand named after one of my predecessors, Lord Pendry. That is also where I took my daughter to watch her first ever live game of football—an important
	moment in any child’s life, I am sure Members will agree. She calls Bower Fold the Stalybridge Wembley, which I rather like.
	Finally, there is Mossley FC, slightly lower down the football pyramid than Hyde and Stalybridge, but up and coming, with their ground, Seel Park, offering a truly stunning backdrop, and under the astute stewardship of Lloyd Morrison and non-league legend Peter Band.
	Today I want to raise several issues on behalf of those clubs. Unsurprisingly, money is a real cause for concern at that level, with many clubs constantly struggling to survive. We heard at the start of the debate about the plight of Hereford United and the problems that they have been facing; unfortunately, we hear that story all too often in non-league football.
	Given that we have just seen a transfer window where in excess of £800 million was spent, it is fair to say that non-league clubs feel forgotten, that the money does not trickle down to the grass roots of the game, and that those at the top all too often come across as being too focused on themselves. That was no more apparent than in the ludicrous proposals for the A and B teams of premier league clubs to play in the lower leagues—something that would kill non-league football. I should have thought that would have been obvious to anyone who was aware of the lower leagues. Clubs are going bust at that level, while premier league clubs pay millions of pounds in wages and rake in lucrative sponsorship deals from around the world. A player can be on in excess of £100,000—perhaps £200,000 or £300,000—a week in wages, while the local non-league club down the road is struggling to survive and relies on a dedicated army of volunteers to get by. How can the balance between those two things be right?
	Another issue is travelling, especially by northern teams, particularly at steps 1 and 2 of the league. Travelling to mid-week matches on the other side of the country can be a logistical and financial nightmare for semi-professional teams; greater consideration is needed. Travelling distances can also hinder clubs’ progression, as the costs involved put them off taking promotion, even if they have earned it, as often happens in the northern league.
	As we have heard today, non-league clubs are also important parts of their local community. That is certainly true of the teams in my constituency. Stalybridge Celtic, for example, have a dedicated community development officer to ensure that this is at the forefront of their priorities. That work is often underestimated. I think the true worth of every non-league football club to the community is vast and, frankly, cannot be measured. More recognition is due to non-league clubs for that work.
	People asked me to raise other issues, including the possibility of a salary cap such as operates in the football league, which would be linked to a percentage of turnover.
	I am delighted that we have this debate today. I hope that non-league day on Saturday is a success around the country, not least with victories for Hyde, Stalybridge Celtic and Mossley. I also hope that the footballing authorities pay more attention to the plight of non-league clubs, and at the very least recognise the valuable work they do in their communities. Non-league football may not be seen as the glamorous end of football, but it is real football, it is the grass roots and it keeps the game alive. Without it, football would lose its soul.

Mark Garnier: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on bringing this important debate to the House. Clearly a great number of hon. Members on both sides are enthusiastic football supporters and know a great deal about the subject. I am not one of them. I have to confess that I am not the most enthusiastic football supporter in the country, and I think that any constituent who sees an MP trying to “ham it up” will see through them straight away, so I do not pretend that I am the world’s leading expert. Instead, I rely on my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), a son of Kidderminster who keeps me in touch with the Kidderminster Harriers, the leading team in my constituency, alongside Bewdley Town football club and Stourport Swifts—I too have three non-league football clubs in my constituency.
	In the years I have been involved in Wyre Forest as a parliamentary candidate and as the local MP, I has been my sad duty—albeit one I relish each time it comes about—to work with successive chairmen to raise funds to try to save the Kidderminster Harriers football club. It is, I am afraid, one of the great problems of the smaller, lower league football clubs that most of them, despite enormous support from supporters and fans who give personal contributions, are, broadly speaking, ultimately supported by the patronage of private individuals. Most recently, the Kidderminster Harriers were got on to a sound financial footing through the incredibly hard work done by one such individual, Mark Serrell, and his wife, and through quite substantial personal financial sacrifice.
	As we heard from the previous speaker, there is an awful lot of money in the broader football economy—probably enough money to keep the whole thing going, were it not for the huge amount of leakage at the top end, where a great deal of money seeps out of the football economy into the pockets of star players. They are probably worth it, but at the end of the day even an investment banker might blush at £300,000 a week in salary. The sport needs the non-league clubs to bring on the players of the future, and that is why more should be done to support them. At the moment, because of the complex interconnectedness in the football economy, people such as Mark Serrell of the Kidderminster Harriers are, in effect, subsidising Wayne Rooney’s salary.
	It is important to recognise the huge contribution that clubs such as the Harriers make to their communities, and I will go through in detail some of the stuff they do. Kidderminster Harriers run a number of community and charitable activities. The club’s community scheme has football courses for children aged between five and 14 during the school holidays—an incredibly important time when they are not being supervised. They are held not just in Kidderminster, but across the entire county and in neighbouring south Shropshire and south Staffordshire. Malvern, Worcester, Bromsgrove, Droitwich, Cleobury Mortimer and Kinver—all benefit from the Kidderminster Harriers.
	The football academy, which is run in association with Birmingham Metropolitan college, holds trials for players aged between 16 and 18. Importantly, this enables potential Harriers stars of the future to combine football
	training with a range of full-time courses at Birmingham Metropolitan college. We all know the importance of having a plan B, especially when one is in sport.
	The Harriers have recently been recruiting teenagers to a five-a-side indoor football team that will play against larger league clubs in the midlands. Aggborough stadium occasionally hosts charity fun days. The club’s official charity partner for this season is Prostate Cancer UK. It linked up with the charity at the start of the new campaign in August, with the players posing in special “Men United” shirts during the traditional team picture. The use of Aggborough stadium is also available for other events. It is right that any organisation with assets to sweat should do that as much as possible, but it is encouraging that Kidderminster Harriers lets the community use its stadium. On 27 August, Aggborough hosted an international match between England Under-17s and Czech Republic Under-17s.
	We have heard that the “fit and proper” test is incredibly important, and a great deal has been said about that. Two issues are worth looking at. First, there is inadequate distribution of money throughout the entire football economy, and the Football Association needs to deal with that. I call on the Minister to use her substantial powers of persuasion to help it to come to the right decision and conclusion.

David Mowat: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The Football Association has a surplus of about £80 million per annum, which basically comes from the England team. That money is given 50% to the grass roots and 50% to the professional game. There is absolutely no reason why it should not all go to the grass roots. Front Benchers on both sides of the House should be applying pressure on that. It would result in an additional £40 million for Hereford, Worksop, Kidderminster and Warrington.

Mark Garnier: I entirely agree. It is absolutely right that we should be pushing as much money as we possibly can down to the non-league football clubs.
	Secondly, as we have heard, the Government can probably do a little more to help these football clubs directly. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire that we should not go round handing out VAT breaks to them. However, given the great amount of charitable and community activity going on within some of them, there is a case to be made for having charitable or quasi-charitable status for the element of the club that is giving back to the community. The Government could do a great deal of work in looking to provide such help so that clubs benefit, as other charities do, from a reduction in business rates. Furthermore, there could be help for the businesses outside in the community that support the clubs through donations whereby they get tax breaks on those donations.
	This has been a very interesting debate. I am learning a great deal about football, having, as I said, come from a very low base to start with. It is important that we support these clubs. Many football supporters recognise that they are fantastic, enthusiastic centres of the community, but people like me who are not supporters, but work with our communities, also recognise absolutely that the work they do is incredibly cohesive in a town. Even if one hates football, one has to recognise the value of the game in supporting the community.

John McDonnell: I want to follow on from what the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said. We are debating three issues: first, his point about resources; secondly, regulation, particularly with regard to the openness and transparency of the operational boards; and thirdly, the right to community representation on the boards of football clubs.
	I am honorary vice-president of Hayes & Yeading United. I was honorary vice-president of Hayes football club, as it was formerly, and I have supported it for 35 years. Hayes has been a successful club over the years. We produced Cyrille Regis, Les Ferdinand and Jason Roberts. In fact, the chair of the FA, Greg Dyke, is a Hayes boy. We had a successful track record but, like many non-league clubs, we ran into financial difficulties because, as is particularly the case for a London non-league club, the pull of the premiership and other teams is enormous, and maintaining a supporter base is extremely difficult. We tried to reduce costs by finding alternative sites and so on. We looked to sell our ground and to purchase from the local council, Hillingdon, the football stadium within half a mile of our club site that it was going to close and sell off, but it refused to sell it to us. It was right next to a local school. We were looking to take over the ground, set up a football academy, work with the local school and act as a community resource, but Hillingdon council was too greedy and refused to sell us the site. In fact, it refused to enter into a partnership.
	Hayes sold their ground and merged with Yeading, and I became the honorary president of Hayes & Yeading United. Unfortunately, however, even the income from the sale of the ground was not enough to cover their debts. We were looking to move to the Yeading site, but there was not sufficient money to finish off the work we had done on that ground, so we are now nomads. We played at Woking’s ground last year, and I spent more time on the M25 than actually watching matches. We are now at Maidenhead and are desperately trying to raise funds to finish off the Yeading site.
	We should pay tribute to all the volunteers out there who have kept non-league football going—they work so hard. We have all come here with our traumas and we have all gone through various experiences where not everything has been completely open and transparent, but people work hard to help these clubs survive.
	Hayes produced two England players—Cyrille Regis and Les Ferdinand—as the result of a youth policy. They worked with youngsters, gave them basic training and the opportunity to play—getting that opportunity is difficult for many at semi-professional level—and brought on grass-roots football, which I think produced good national teams in the past. The reason our national team has problems at the moment is that a lot of grass-roots football has been undermined. The cost of pitches in my area is pricing out local teams. The local non-league clubs represent not just the grass roots but the heart of football and its development. That is why they need more support.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Wyre Forest: the economy is wrong. There needs to be a redistribution of wealth to grass-roots football and an honest discussion with the FA and the premiership about a proper levy
	beyond what currently exists, to enable more grass-roots investment in terms of not only pitches but revenue support.
	Secondly, Hereford is a good example of the problems we have had. Only a few years ago, Hayes came fifth in the conference. Then we were relegated to conference south, and we got relegated last year but survived only because other clubs went into administration, which is was an horrendous experience. We need openness and transparency on how club boards operate, so that people can be aware of the financial situation and how it is being managed.
	Thirdly, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) mentioned the supporters trust. If a grant is given from the FA or the premiership, it should be linked to automatic supporter representation on boards, because that will gain not just openness and transparency but community control of the clubs.
	There are simple solutions to tackle some of the key issues facing non-league football. I agree with everybody else: this is about not just football but community spirit. It is at the heart of community life in many of our constituencies.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are very short of time for this debate, which needs to finish at 4 o’clock and to accommodate all those who still wish to participate I am going to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to four minutes. The Minister and the shadow Minister have also agreed to reduce their time, so we are sharing the burden. Each Back Bencher has four minutes from now, and I hope that interventions will be less frequent—although I am sure they will be relevant—in order to help us stay on time.

Graham Evans: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for securing this excellent debate. I remember visiting that great club Hereford United in January 1990 for an FA cup fourth-round match in front of 13,770 people. I also remember going to a football match in 1975 in which Tony Currie played for Sheffield United; on that day they lost 5-1 in front of 61,000 people.
	Weaver Vale is blessed with several football clubs. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) mentioned Runcorn Linnets, which is an excellent example of a community coming together to start a new football club. It is very well run and very well supported. We also have Witton Albion, which was formed in 1887 and is a very popular club. We also have a new club called 1874 Northwich FC, which was formed by supporters of Northwich Victoria football club, which, unfortunately, does not play in the town anymore. Indeed, it no longer plays in the county. It suffered a similar fate to Hereford United.
	As the father of two young boys, and as a touchline dad, my proudest moment at the weekend is seeing my sons put on their football boots and run on to the pitch, although I am a little concerned that my younger son’s nickname is “Cruncher Evans”. I want to talk briefly
	about the recent decline in the number of regular players. There are now 250,000 fewer participants in grass-roots football than there were only a year ago. The figures show that there is a real need to engage with grass-roots football to help support organisations, supporters and players. In my experience, it comes down to mums and dads organising the participation of younger players.
	Having said that, I am proud that the Government have invested £80 million in football facilities over the past year via Sport England and are working jointly with the FA and the premier league. The Government are also committing £100 million for the Football Foundation to continue delivering higher-quality facilities. I remember visiting the excellent facilities in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—all I can say is that we in Cheshire are very envious. In addition, Sport England will be investing £1.6 million to create a grass-roots city of football, an innovative trial looking at new ways of encouraging people to play the game, including casual and small-sided matches.
	I want to pay tribute to Sport Cheshire and to Cheshire FA. Sport Cheshire’s excellent chief executive, Anne Boyd, works tirelessly to encourage young people to take up sport, not just football. I am impressed by the number of girls who are taking up the sport.
	In conclusion, the Government can play a role, but I believe that communities also need to come together. It is down to mums and dads, working with local authorities. There is still an awful lot to do, but I believe that, by working together, we can secure an optimistic future for grass-roots and non-league football.

Graham Jones: Like many other Members, I am saddened by the struggles faced by non-league football. I am particularly saddened by the loss of Great Harwood Town FC, which no longer exists. That is symptomatic of the troubles faced by many non-league football clubs and of the decline in participation. There is a challenge. Although most of today’s debate has focused on the semi-professional level, I would like to make three quick points about the challenges faced by grass-roots football.
	First, there is a huge challenge to increase the level of participation. When I played, my local combination had four divisions, but now it has two. Participation is severely hampered by the number of people who are attracted to premier league football or other forms of entertainment. Those clubs are essentially the feeders for the semi-professional clubs that are picked for Sunday leagues and out of the combination. If non-league football at the semi-professional level is to survive and thrive, the tier below is just as important.
	Secondly, I think that participation is about health, community and all the other aspects that Members have mentioned, which is why we should be encouraging people to get involved. There is a big challenge facing senior football at the grass-roots level. The amount of senior football played is threadbare. In constituencies like mine, it is really important that people engage in some form of recreational activity, and football is a great participatory sport. I think that people should be more involved, particularly those who are getting on in
	years and might think that they are past their prime. There should still be a game out there for them, but sadly, there often is not.
	Thirdly, I want to mention the state of recreation grounds. We need to look at how grass-roots football is funded, right down at a basic level. With the demise of teams and the reduction in the number of players, some of our recreation grounds are becoming tired and unused, and they need investment. I believe that there are many people out there who would respond to that need and who would like to see clubs thrive. Whinney Hill football club has taken over a recreation ground and it now has several teams, including junior teams and female teams. It has invested in the recreation ground, partly through public funding and grants and partly through its own initiative. That club and that recreation ground are thriving. We should look at that model and put more investment into our recreation grounds, rather than letting them wither away as unused pieces of land that are not particularly attractive.

Damian Collins: I join other colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this debate.
	I am saddened by the plight of Hereford United. I grew up and went to school in Herefordshire. Nearly 30 years ago, in January 1985, I remember seeing the Hereford United of Chris Price and Stewart Phillips draw 1-1 with the Arsenal of Charlie Nicholas, Kenny Sansom and Viv Anderson. In 1990, the famous Manchester United FA cup run, which brought Alex Ferguson his first trophy, very nearly ended in the fourth round at Hereford United on what Alex Ferguson rightly called in his autobiography a “pudding of a pitch”. Even the bull that is traditionally brought out for cup ties before the kick-off at Hereford United was glad to get off the pitch. The romance of the FA cup—the romance of non-league and league football—is what makes football in this country so special. To see Hereford United go through what it has gone through is a tragedy born out of poor management and poor oversight by the Football Association and other football bodies.
	Non-league football in my constituency has had its ups and downs. Folkestone Invicta has had recent financial problems. Those have been resolved. I pay tribute to the work of the former chairman, Mark Jenner, and his team in stabilising the club’s finances. I have met officials at the club to talk about what they could do. They now have the club on a secure footing and are clearing the debts. I am grateful to the Football Association, which had a meeting with the club to discuss how it can access funds to carry out essential ground maintenance. It has entered into a proper lease agreement with Shepway district council and the future of the club looks much more sound than it did a year or two ago.
	That club had a bonus when something happened that again shows the romance of non-league football. A young player, Johan ter Horst, was brought up in Folkestone and Hythe and started playing football on Saturday mornings with the juniors at Folkestone. He started in the under-13s team and then, at the end of last season, was sold to Hull City in the premier league. The club will get a financial reward directly from the transfer
	and, depending on how the young player’s career develops in the premier league, may get more money in the future. That is an example of how the trickle-down effect can work.
	For many football clubs, sustaining themselves is the greatest challenge they face. Other Members have asked whether more financial support could be given through tax breaks to community sports clubs, just as such opportunities exist for amateur sporting clubs in the community. Although non-league football clubs pay some of their players part-time wages, they are very low and the costs of running the club are often very high. They are basically not-for-profit organisations that do a great deal not only to entertain the people who watch the clubs play, but to support grass-roots sport in their communities. There should be some special recognition of that. If there could be incentives for the community ownership of clubs, such as a more sound financial model or tax breaks, we should champion them.
	In the brief amount of time that is available, I want to pick up on what my hon. Friend said about the fit and proper person test. It is failing time and time again. It is failing because that is what football wants to happen. It is within the power of football to devise a more rigorous test and impose it more rigorously, but it consistently fails to do so. Football will change only through external pressure that it cannot resist; it never changes voluntarily. I was proud to serve on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2011 when we produced a report that made a series of recommendations on football governance. Most of those have been ignored by football bodies and more has to be done to put pressure on them. The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) secured a debate in the House earlier this week on the plight of Coventry City. Again, that is a failure of ownership. There has to be intervention by the Football Association to impose a proper owners and directors test and to sanction clubs and owners when they fail to comply. I agree with my hon. Friend that that information should be made available to the creditors of the club and the fans.

John Glen: It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I want to raise the plight of Salisbury City football club, the oldest and biggest club in my constituency, which is in dire straits, and its experience over the past few months.
	I have two suggested improvements in governance that could help. The first is about prize money. I believe that there needs to be a reallocation of prize money from the FA cup to the FA trophy and FA vase. It is ludicrous that at the moment, small clubs can find themselves in the third or fourth round of those competitions, yet the cost of travel to an away match outweighs the money that they will gain from winning.
	The second suggestion is about the fit and proper person test, which is not fit for purpose and needs to change urgently. As I speak, the ownership of Salisbury City football club is in dispute in the courts and the club’s very existence is threatened. Its fans are bereft and feel badly let down. It is a far cry from just a few months ago, when I saw Salisbury win 3-1 in the last
	home match of the season to finish in 11th place in the conference south. The then chairman decided that he could not continue to look after the club and devised a plan with a local businessman, Mark Winter, to transfer ownership. Mr Winter put up £70,000, but he needed a business partner. He was introduced to Mr Outail Medi Nader Touzar, who appeared to have a great deal of enthusiasm for the club as an investor. He had previously been presented to Reading and had been publicly linked to a consortium bidding to take over Crystal Palace.
	Mr Touzar’s credentials seemed sound. He was presented as a potential chairman and was waved through the owners and directors test without a murmur of dissent. However, the reality was that this man was not fit to be involved in the running of a football club. He said that he would bring huge wealth to the club—promises witnessed by several people but unfortunately never put in writing or subjected to official scrutiny. It was no more than a handshake behind closed doors. His cash did not arrive, and he started behaving rather oddly. He was sleeping in the stadium, removing season ticket cash from the safe and making outlandish claims about foreign signings at a time when the club was barred from registering players. He claimed to have sold shares to other foreign investors, but to this day he declines to name them. Rumours therefore started that he had not had any money in the first place. Mr Winter, the original fan-investor, sought to replace Mr Touzar with another consortium of people who were prepared to invest. However, when they went to the authorities they were met with resistance at every moment, because technically Mr Touzar was still the owner.
	Salisbury’s experience highlights the fact that the current fit and proper person test is a rubber-stamping exercise that makes a mockery of the FA. It freely admits that it is a tick-box exercise, not a subjective, full assessment of whether a prospective owner would be good for football. I feel that what is needed is a Disclosure and Barring Service-type check specifically aimed at potential football directors. The verification of claims and means, the taking up of references from previous business associates, proof of assets and basic oversight of business plans is surely not too much to ask.
	At every level, football requires more careful financial handling and astute management. My impression is that the FA and the regulatory bodies turn a blind eye because fans want to see their club continue to operate, but my club has nowhere to play this season. Mr Touzar is still not being dealt with, and it is outrageous.

Paul Uppal: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing the debate. He told a tale of woe about local football, as did the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). It saddened me to hear both their stories.
	It is with some sadness that I mention that three members of my staff are Baggies fans. When I put my name down for the debate, they said, “Well, you don’t seem to have much prospect at Wolves this season.” It has been a tough few years, but this season has started off quite well. This weekend will be the celebration of the 125th anniversary of the building of Molineux stadium, so I thought a contribution to the debate would be apt.
	I want to highlight two non-league football teams whose work at grass-roots level in Wolverhampton and the black country I have seen—Punjabi Wolves and Sporting Khalsa. I have seen much of the fabulous work that they do by affiliating with local gurdwaras and the Sikh community in general.
	In the three minutes I have left I cannot wholly encapsulate the full spirit of Punjabi Wolves, but I think that this small anecdote, which is an old story of Punjab United—the initial club from which Punjabi Wolves were formed—will probably encapsulate the general spirit. I am told this story is true as I have spoken to people who were apparently on the coach at the time.
	The team was playing a match down in Southall and I think they had narrowly squeaked a 3-2 victory. They were celebrating with the opposite side in a pub in Southall, and the evening went on and it was getting quite late—I think they had reached the 11th hour. One member of the team said, “Look, do we really want to go all the way back to Wolverhampton?” At which point another player suggested, “Don’t worry, my auntie lives round the corner. There is no problem, we can go round and knock on the door.” This was the early 1970s, and times were very different.
	At about 11.30 pm, the team knocked on the door. They got auntie out of bed, and she woke up and made about 15 burley young blokes roti, chapatti, curries and all sorts of things. They had a good night—festivities apparently went on until 3 am. They woke up at about 7 o’clock as some of the boys had to get back to work. They were chatting among themselves, and the individual whom I know came downstairs, joined them, and they had a hearty breakfast. At that point auntie walked in and he looked at her and she looked at him. He said, “Boys, we need to drink up fairly quickly.” They said, “Why?”, and he said, “Because it’s not my auntie’s house.” They then had to go round the corner and drive all the way back, but I think that spirit of hospitality really encapsulates the whole well-meaningness of Punjabi Wolves—I am not sure whether that spirit is Punjabi or comes from Wolves, but it is a far gone time.
	I digress. On a more serious point, much has been made about the fit and proper person test for football management, but I occasionally still play football with a couple of my friends—we play five-a-side whenever we can—and we often talk about football as it is one thing I really enjoy. To be candid to fellow Members, sometimes when we stand up and ask a decent question at Prime Minister’s questions, other Members will come up to us and say, “Well done,” but that is as nothing to having a good match of five-a-side and scoring a goal. Afterwards, we have a pint with our friends and talk about it, and of course we embellish it, but it is a wonderful feeling.
	When we compare that feeling with the news we have had this week—some of the boys I play with are United fans, and I have been speaking to them—when players are getting £300,000 a week, it is a far cry from the class of ’92 when Butt, Giggs, Beckham, Neville and Scholes all came together. Could we really have that in today’s modern football game? It seems an unlikely dream.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned young players coming forward at grass-roots level. My son plays football at grass-roots
	level. He is 17 and invariably plays on the right. When he gets the ball, the advice given to him is invariably, “Hoof it up. Kick it forward”, but he wants to take time with the ball and enjoy it. Without investment in the grounds where people can enjoy possession and play football, we will not cement the foundation for the future of our English team.

Clive Efford: This has been an informative and enjoyable debate. Although he has not spoken, I am pleased to see the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) in his place, because he and I made our own contributions to non-league football back in the early ‘80s when we ran Pembroke House youth club football team. His administration skills are legendary.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman was, of course, a fantastic coach, and we were the best team down the Old Kent road. Does he agree that what youth football does for they youngsters who play for the teams—instilling of a bit of discipline and team spirit and so on—improves their lives? Those youngsters did not end up being Giggs or anyone like that, but they have all gone on to very satisfactory futures.

Clive Efford: They have indeed, and I am still in touch with some of them. Youth football certainly makes a significant contribution, as many hon. Members have said in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). This is a timely debate because it comes a couple of days before national non-league day. In this period the premier league and many football league clubs are not playing; it is an opportunity for people to support non-league sides, which we encourage them to do.
	National non-league day has had a significant impact on attendance over the past couple of years. Vanarama, which—surprisingly enough—sells vans, has said that it will contribute 10p for every fan who attends a conference game this week. If the number gets above 50,000, it will double its £10,000 contribution to Prostate Cancer UK. If that does not make people go out and support their non-league side, I do not know what will. Sadly, I cannot accept the invitation from Cray Valley in my own constituency this week because I will be in central London speaking to and welcoming the Darlo Mums, who are marching down from Jarrow to save our NHS. However, I wish Cray Valley all the best against Rochester on Saturday.
	The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire raised some important issues and was right to highlight the problems at Hereford United. He reminded us of the spirit of Ronnie Radford and they way that John Motson burst on to our television screens in that famous victory against Newcastle. That such a club should be brought to its knees and face extinction because of poor management is a tragedy. The hon. Gentleman also highlighted how the Football Association and the leagues have got to get their act together in deciding who is a fit and proper person to run a club. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made the important point that there should be registration before ownership. We need to sharpen up that process because too many
	people are gaining ownership of clubs before it is completed, and that is having devastating consequences for football clubs.
	Many hon. Members spoke about the importance of football in their local communities—so many that in this short time I cannot mention everyone. I, too, think it important that the premier league and the FA better support football at the lower levels. When £835 million can be spent in the transfer market, but clubs such as Salisbury City, Hereford and others can nearly go out of existence over relatively tiny sums of money, there is something seriously wrong at the heart of our game and we need to do more.
	I do not think we need another division below the football league. When resources and finances are so thinly spread at that level, it does not make sense to add another division and spread them even more thinly. The document put forward by the FA and Greg Dyke recommends strategic loan agreements. I would like those examined in more detail to see if more formal arrangements can be built up between lower league clubs and clubs that enjoy the riches at the higher levels so that investment can be made not just in players on loan, but in facilities, sending coaches down, training coaches and advising clubs on physio, diet and all the sorts of things that improve the game. With such investment at the lower level, we could increase the pool of talent there, and if we can increase the number of players enjoying the best facilities at the lower end of our national game, perhaps those diamonds in the rough will come through and benefit the elite game.
	Many hon. Members have spoken about how community spirit is touched by football. There are few public bodies, organisations or businesses that touch our communities like football does. It has been at the forefront of tackling many social issues, such as racism and many forms of prejudice. I would challenge anyone to find another sport that has had a greater impact than football. It has had its problems, and still has problems that need to be addressed, but it makes a huge contribution and a big difference to our communities. It is absolutely vital. The hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire said that football can change the lives of young people, and we have all seen fine examples of that in our communities.
	Many hon. Members have mentioned the impact football has had in their constituencies. I wish I could have gone into that in more detail. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) came up with the ultimate anecdote of community spirit, while the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) referred to being a touchline dad and to “Cruncher Evans”. Perhaps we should bear a thought for the players who might come across “Cruncher” in future, as well as wishing him the best for his future footballing career.
	Football is vital to our local communities. We have a very rich sport, but unfortunately not enough of the resources at the highest level of the game reach down to the lower levels. Only a very small amount of that money getting down to the non-league level could make a huge difference not just to those clubs, but to the contribution they make to their local communities and to the production of fine footballers for future generations.
	I hope that the people who operate at the top of the game are listening to today’s debate, because hon. Members have done a fine job in representing football fans and bringing attention to the issues that need to be addressed if we are to save our game for the future.

Helen Grant: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for securing the debate. The recent developments at Hereford and other non-league clubs make it timely to consider the challenges they face and the support offered now and in the future. The financial sustainability of football clubs, especially in non-league football, is an important topic that appears to be at the root of many of the issues clubs face today. I know that the Football Association’s governance and regulation divisions are aware of the pressures clubs are under, and they continue to look at what improvements could be made to support clubs directly or indirectly and to assess how regulation and the structures around it can be improved.
	Over recent years, many changes have been made to non-league football and the regulatory environment in which clubs operate. While the rules might seem quite interventionist to some, the encouragement of regular reporting has certainly seen clubs at this level generally becoming more financially stable.
	Many hon. Members have spoken with great passion about their local clubs and their loyal fans. I want to respond to as many points and questions put to me as possible. I have little time, so I am going to have to gallop through, but I shall do my best.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Hereford and South Herefordshire and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and others spoke about close working relationships, the effectiveness of the owners and directors test and transparency, while the football creditors rule was also raised. I can confirm that there are ongoing concerns about relationships, the test and the efficacy of the rules. I would be happy to ask the FA, which I meet on a regular basis and am seeing this week, to review and look again at the owners and directors test to see whether any sharpening improvements could be made. I would also be happy to see whether any additional powers would help, such as those conferred on Ofcom, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) in a debate earlier this week about Coventry City football club.
	On the narrowing or abolition of the football creditors rule, there is no plan to legislate. The industry is taking the steps that need to be made. I hope that the financial fair play rules in the leagues and the financial sustainability requirements imposed in non-league football will reduce the dependency on the creditors rule, which is in any case used relatively infrequently.
	The hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who I know has had to leave, spoke about financial support from the premier and other leagues trickling down. My view is that the redistribution of income is a matter for the premier league and the FA. It is not a matter for the Government, but we would, of
	course, support and encourage any measure that strengthens the financial sustainability of clubs at all levels.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) spoke of Grimsby Town, its place in the local community and its role as a local partner for delivering the National Citizen Service, which sounds very interesting indeed. He has asked me on a number of occasions to visit him in Cleethorpes and perhaps watch a Grimsby Town game, and I will certainly look into that. I am delighted that Grimsby Town are playing such a key role in the community, which is further evidence of how much more these clubs provide, well beyond football.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) also referred to the owners and directors test as an inadequate rubber-stamping exercise that is making a mockery of the FA—I am sure it is listening. Clearly, Salisbury City have had a very difficult summer, and I understand his frustration and that of supporters. However, the ODT is not a rubber-stamping exercise; it does set out disqualification criteria that prevent certain individuals from taking control of football clubs, and I assure him and the House that not all prospective owners are able to pass that test. As I have said, I will ask the FA to review the working of the ODT and see whether more can be done to protect clubs from these various challenges. He also referred to money for the FA Vase and FA Trophy competitions. Again, I repeat that redistribution is not a matter for government; it is a matter for the Football League, the Premier League and the FA, but the Government would certainly support any measure to improve the financial sustainability of football.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) raised the issue of charitable or quasi-charitable status for non-league clubs. I can tell them that we want sports to get as much benefit as they possibly can, so that they can drive participation and thriving community sport. We are working with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and with sports on reviewing community amateur sports clubs, and I will of course make sure that the issue of non-league football clubs is raised.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Helen Grant: I will give way later if I have any time left, but I must cover a couple of matters first. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) spoke with great passion about falling attendances at games. I cannot promise that the FA will take him up on his offer in relation to Wembley, but, as other hon. Members have mentioned, we do have a non-league day coming up this weekend. I encourage all hon. Members to visit their local club and enjoy everything that is on offer.
	Lastly, I wish to discuss one potentially strong safeguard, which has been mentioned by many Members: better
	engagement with supporters. There are many good examples of supporters engaging with their local clubs, some of which can be found at AFC Wimbledon, Brentford and Exeter City, but there is more to do. With that in mind, I have accepted Supporters Direct’s proposal for an expert group of supporters, which will include representatives from across football. I hope that the group will examine, among other things, the barriers to supporter ownership and what more can be done to increase engagement with supporters.

David Mowat: rose—

Helen Grant: I really am out of time, because I want to leave a few minutes for my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire to speak.
	In conclusion, I do not want us to lose sight of the exciting opportunities for non-league football to generate and maintain both interest and participation in the sport as a whole. It is with that in mind that I will continue to work with the football authorities on providing a supportive environment for them to prosper in the future.

Jesse Norman: I would like to thank all colleagues from across the House for taking part in a cracking debate that has shown the House of Commons at its best; it has been full of wisdom, insight, passion and good humour. I know that the Minister has not failed to note the enormous passion and the strong feelings expressed about the ODT, and I am glad that she has committed to asking the FA to review it.
	To bookend my earlier remarks about Hereford United, we have one shining example of a great community football club in Hereford: Westfields football club, founded 48 years ago, after England won the World cup. It was the grassiest of grass-roots clubs then, run by a team of people, one of whom was a 16-year-old goalkeeper and is now the chief executive, Andrew Morris. I wish we had more such clubs.
	The football pyramid does not work at the moment. We know that. In the early 1990s, when Hereford United were last at risk, Graham Turner, the revered former manager, wrote to all members of the premiership asking them to send a side to help to boost Hereford United’s gate. Only one premiership manager replied: Alex Ferguson, who sent a team including Ryan Giggs. That made a huge difference. That is what we should be seeing a lot more of across the premier league today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the future of non-league football.

Achievement Gap in Reading

Dawn Primarolo: I remind hon. Members that this debate will conclude at 5 pm precisely. I have had indications from four Members that they wish to speak. In order to leave enough time for the mover of the motion, the shadow Minister and the Minister, I am asking Back Benchers to try to keep their remarks to approximately five minutes. I am not going to set a time limit at the moment. I ask Members to be on their best behaviour.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the achievement gap in reading between poorer children and their better-off peers.
	I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this issue for debate today and I hope that we have the opportunity to explore the important issues of child poverty, inter-generational poverty and social mobility.
	In January, I along with many other parliamentarians attended a reception hosted by Save the Children called “Change the Story”. We learnt about its partnership with a charity called Beanstalk to deliver the reading programme Born to Read. I am a parliamentary champion for Save the Children and I was fascinated to learn about its involvement in a major reading programme that aims to reach 23,000 children by the end of 2018.
	At the reception, we heard from Lauren Child, author of the “Charlie and Lola” books, who said what a marvellous ambition it was to get everybody reading. She stressed how important it is for children to enjoy reading for the opportunity it presents to delve into other worlds and expand their imagination. The former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), also spoke, focusing on social mobility and how important it is for disadvantaged children to learn to read well. I want to explore both those important perspectives.
	In the UK today, one in every four children leaves primary school without being able to read well, meaning 130,000 children each year start secondary school already behind, with consequences for their later life chances. Of those children, a disproportionately large number are from disadvantaged backgrounds. Of children on free school meals—on the definition as we knew it before this week’s move to free school meals for all infants—the proportion leaving primary school who do not read well rises drastically to a shocking 40%.
	Inevitably, not being able to read well affects a child’s life across a range of outcomes and limits chances of success. Not reading well not only shuts children out of further learning but means they are less likely to read outside of school and therefore will miss out on all the benefits associated with the joy of reading. For children from poorer backgrounds, there is a profound impact on the likelihood of their ever catching up.
	This is not a new problem. Despite persistent efforts from successive Governments, the number of children reaching secondary school age without a firm grasp of this crucial skill is still far too high. Progress has been made, there are examples of excellent schemes and major initiatives have been introduced, but there is
	undoubtedly much more to do. There is overwhelming evidence that not being able to read well has implications not only for an individual child’s well-being and success, but also for our society and economic prosperity. Children who have fallen behind at 11 are less likely to secure good qualifications by the time they finish their education, thus impacting on their ability to get a high-paying job or gain career advancement. For children from disadvantaged backgrounds, this means it is less likely that they will have the means to pull themselves out of disadvantage and break intergenerational cycles of poverty.
	Low literacy has been associated with both truancy and exclusion. Those with poor reading and communication skills are more at risk of offending and it is well documented that a high proportion of the prison population have difficulties in reading.
	Beyond the individual human costs, the economic costs of this wasted talent means lower prosperity for the country as a whole. If the UK had in recent decades closed the achievement gap at 11, this would have led to a more skilled work force and higher economic growth: according to a recent report by Save the Children, GDP in 2013 would have been around £20 billion or 1% higher; by 2030, it would be around £30 billion or 1.8% higher.
	The achievement gap between the poorest children and their better-off peers is consistent with achievement in reading. Children born into poorer families are significantly more likely to have fallen behind in reading by the age of 11. Some 40% of poor children are not reading well compared with 25% of their better-off peers. Within that, some disadvantaged groups are faring less well at age 11 than others. Boys, and particularly low-income, white boys, are the most likely group to be falling behind when it comes to reading. We need to make sure that all children have a fair start in life.
	Early years are, of course, crucial. The foundations for early language and literacy are laid in the early years, before children start formal school. I would like to give credit to Bookstart, which is fantastic for issuing books at such an early stage. A child from a disadvantaged background is likely to have a more limited vocabulary than other children before even starting pre-school. The implementation of the Bercow report did lead to many important changes, including support for early language development, but I would like to see a further review on progress made on this aspect.
	I welcome the expansion of nursery places to two-year-olds and the introduction of an early-years premium from April 2015. This specifically aims to close the gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers by providing funding to early-years providers to help them raise the quality of their provision. In time I would like to see this at a higher level. Going to a high quality pre-school plus an effective primary school has an enormous effect, balancing out differences by family background, so we must focus on quality as well as quantity of provision and on well-trained professionals.
	I strongly believe that early education has to be right for the individual child and based on a clear understanding of child development. Trying to “hothouse” young children can be counter-productive and put them off learning for life, especially if they see themselves as failing simply because they are not as mature as their peers. Personally, I see much to support in the Save Childhood Movement’s “too much, too soon” campaign, which believes that
	children in England are starting formal learning too early, that the value of their creative and expressive play is being undermined, and that learning dispositions and later academic achievement may be affected. I believe that such views should not be dismissed lightly and we should be making sure we have the right balance in our early years programmes to enhance long-term learning.
	As well as improving outcomes at 11, we have to lay the foundations for effective secondary school learning. Nevertheless, I certainly support the view that there should be a greater focus on early language development in the pre-school years.
	I am concerned about summer-borns, some of whom are simply not ready to start formal school at barely four years of age. I welcome the movement that the Department for Education has made on this issue with new guidance, but I know there are parents still battling schools and local authorities simply to exercise parental choice. I have had parents contact me from across the country whose children could not cope with formal school at such an early stage; imagine feeling a failure at just four years of age.
	Of course, some children will be developmentally ready to read at an earlier stage than others. I believe all children should be viewed as individuals whatever their backgrounds, and supported in their learning in an appropriate way to achieve their full potential. There is a positively reinforcing cycle between reading enjoyment and reading skill. We learn to read, then read to learn. The enjoyment of reading is associated not only with better reading skills but with better skills in other areas, such as maths. Research for the National Literacy Trust suggests a positive relationship between reading frequency, reading enjoyment and attainment.
	I know that the Minister was keen to introduce phonics as the main reading scheme in schools, and there is widespread support for that as a technical approach. It is also important, however, that teachers should be able to use their professionalism to develop each child’s reading. Alongside phonics, we must have programmes to support reading for enjoyment. I asked an oral question on such programmes recently, and the summer reading challenge was given as the answer. It is a great scheme, and I am sure that this year’s Mythical Maze gave many children a great deal of pleasure, but we must ensure that we have schemes that reach all children. I wonder how many children have never, or only rarely, visited a public library.
	There is a wide range of organisations that work to promote reading skills and reading for pleasure for children, young people and adults, but more needs to be done by all, including voluntary organisations, business, families and Government, to promote the joy of reading. Good schools make an enormous difference, especially to children from more disadvantaged backgrounds. It is undeniable that poverty can make it harder for children to do well, but a good school can be transformational.
	There now needs to be increased support for schools and teachers to do even more to help the poorest children. Policies such as the pupil premium are making a real difference, as was demonstrated in the July 2014 Ofsted report, “The pupil premium: an update”. The Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), has made it clear that schools should not rely on their brightest pupils to score well in
	inspections and league tables. He has said that they must focus relentlessly on closing the achievement gap by making full use of the pupil premium.
	The role of parents and carers in supporting their child’s reading in the home is crucial, but many parents, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, do not understand how best to support their child in developing early literacy and reading habits. Poor families generally have fewer books in the home, and parents with weak literacy skills often lack the confidence to read stories with their children. We must ensure that parents and carers are able to do the best for their children. This means not only ensuring that the right tools and information are available but acting to reduce the poverty that makes it harder for parents to support their children’s learning in the home. I have seen the pupil premium used to support family learning schemes, and I have been impressed to see parents and children learning together.

Barry Sheerman: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way—I find it difficult not to refer to her as my right hon. Friend. Does she agree that there should be a role for Ofsted in assessing the efficacy of the pupil premium? Does she think that the chief inspector should take on that role?

Annette Brooke: I believe that Ofsted took on that role in its recent report. It has proved important to have those Ofsted inspections because, although it is right in principle to tell head teachers to spend the money in the way they think best, concerns were expressed in the first year that the pupil premium was being sidelined into other schemes rather than being used to support the learning of disadvantaged children. It is therefore important to have a separate section in the Ofsted report on how the pupil premium is being used, and the latest report shows that that is becoming effective. We have seen examples of governors getting really involved in tracking the use of the money and the outcomes for the children. We need that kind of whole-school involvement to ensure that we are properly tracking the progress of disadvantaged children.
	The United Kingdom remains a highly unequal country. The poorer outcomes in key skills such as reading and spoken language that are experienced by children at the lower end of the income distribution scale contribute to unequal opportunities to do well in life. If we were to make progress in tackling this educational inequality, we would help to level the playing field so that every child had the opportunity to succeed. That matters for all of us. There is already some fantastic work going on in and out of schools across the country. This Government launched their social mobility strategy in 2011 with the aim of ensuring that everyone has a fair opportunity to fulfil their potential regardless of the circumstances of their birth. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission was established at the same time, but its reports continue to show how much more there is to do.
	On Monday, a new report will be launched by a wide coalition of organisations, including Save the Children, Beanstalk, the National Association of Head Teachers, Bookstart, Teach First and many others. It is called, “Read on, get on: how reading can help children escape
	poverty.” I understand that it has many calls for actions and pledges from all political parties. Please read the report.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We have four Back-Bench Members who wish to participate, plus the shadow Minister and Minister. I will set a time limit of six minutes on Back-Bench contributions. Of course if there are interventions and there is added time, it may be necessary to reduce the time limit, but I hope not. That leaves a reasonable time, hopefully, for the right hon. Lady to respond at the end of the debate. There is a six-minute time limit from now on.

Stephen Twigg: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on securing this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I pay tribute to the work that the right hon. Lady has done on this matter throughout her time in this House, including the questions that she has raised as parliamentary champion for Save the Children. The Save the Children report “Too Young to Fail”, which she referred to at the beginning of her speech, is very powerful and reminds us of the scale of the challenge that we still face. The report says that by the time children are seven, nearly 80% of the later differences in GCSE results between better-off and poorer children have already been determined.
	Two years ago, in 2012, one in seven of seven-year-olds—approximately 76,000 pupils across the country—was still not reaching the expected level in reading. As the right hon. Lady explained so powerfully, children from the poorest backgrounds are much more likely than their better-off peers to fall behind with their reading. As she said, this is not just an immediate challenge for education, but something that stores up problems later on. I am talking about the risks of crime, economic failure and behaviour issues later on in education.
	Studies show that almost one in 10 of the 14-year-olds who had been very poor readers at the end of primary school became persistent truants compared with an average figure of around 2%. We know from Ofsted and others that the group that now face the biggest challenges in literacy are white British children, particularly boys but also girls, and that is part of the challenge that we need to face.
	I welcome what the right hon. Lady said about poverty and about the difference that good and outstanding schools make. I am proud of the schools in my constituency that buck the trend and deliver the best results in English and mathematics at age 11. That shows that with the right ethos and approach and high standards of teaching and learning in our schools, we can make a difference.
	When Joe Anderson took over the leadership of Liverpool city council after the 2010 local elections, he invited my right hon. Friend Baroness Estelle Morris, the former Secretary of State, to lead a cross-party commission on the future of education in Liverpool.
	Between 2000 and 2010, Liverpool’s results at both 11 and 16 improved dramatically. Estelle’s report has been entitled “From Better to Best”, making the point that although progress has been made, there is still a lot more that we need to do in Liverpool. One of her recommendations was that Liverpool should become the foremost reading city in the country and that schools and their partners should give priority to reading so that no child, if capable, would leave primary school unable to read. Out of Baroness Morris’s report, we have the “City of Readers” campaign, run jointly by the mayor, Liverpool city council, the Liverpool learning partnership, which brings together schools and other educationists across the city, and the Reader Organisation. The campaign seeks to fulfil the goal of making Liverpool the foremost reading city in the country.
	The aim is partly to promote reading for pleasure for residents of all ages across the city but also to focus on the achievement gap that is at the heart of the debate today. There are many initiatives, none of which involves charges for parents or children, and the idea is to have wide access for the community as a whole. For example, this summer Liverpool had the “Book It!” summer school, devised for children who need support with reading to help them make the transition from primary to secondary school. That was a free summer school for local children, supported by the local authority and the Liverpool learning partnership.
	There has been a big emphasis on using existing cultural events in the city to promote reading. The “Giant Spectacular” in Newsham park in my constituency earlier in the summer gave such an opportunity, with a focus on readings from Roald Dahl as well as of love letters from the first world war. The recent Liverpool international music festival held beach reads, encouraging families to enjoy reading together. Readers in residence schemes have been put in place whereby a reader from the fantastic Reader Organisation spends two months in schools reading with selected pupils who need extra support and devising groups to promote reading for pleasure. Many schools have been involved, including a number from my constituency, such as Holly Lodge, Mab Lane, Dovecot primary and Our Lady and St Philomena’s primary. There has been a focus on continuing professional development, in particular promoting reading for pleasure, and Liverpool has risen to the challenge of targeting those adults whose life opportunities are held back by illiteracy.
	At the heart of that is social justice, and as the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole said, this is not a new problem. If we can crack it and get it right, we will make a real difference to the life chances of many children and, in particular, children in some of the communities that I represent who often face great challenges from poverty and deprivation. Reading for social justice, reading for pleasure and reading as a crucial part of our economic future as a country—I hope Liverpool will have something to teach the rest of the country by being the city of reading.

Graham Stuart: It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for securing it and giving such a powerful and morally charged
	opening address. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the former shadow Secretary of State, and I congratulate him on his speech and him and his noble Friend Baroness Morris on their efforts in Liverpool. That is just the kind of sustained focus that can enrich people’s lives and make a serious contribution to the economic success of the area. I also want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for choosing this issue for Members to discuss.
	As has been mentioned, white working class children fare particularly badly. A central finding of the Select Committee on Education’s recent report “Underachievement in Education by White Working Class Children”, published in June, was that
	“the attainment ‘gap’ between those children eligible for free school meals and the remainder is wider for white British…children than for”
	any other major ethnic group. Although, as has been said, boys perform worse than girls in any ethnicity or group, poor white children—that is probably a fairer expression than “working class”—both boys and girls have the lowest level of achievement in this country. That is something I want to highlight to the House today.
	My Committee heard that the gap is visible as early as age five. For white British children, who are the lowest-performing ethnic group in early years, the attainment gap already stands at 24% by that age. By the age of five, their future trajectory has been established. The gap then widens to 32.2% at key stage 4. Although the proportion of white British children on free school meals achieving the key stage 4 benchmark has almost doubled over the past seven years, it is still only around half as high as the number of non-free-school-meals white British children who succeed by that measure. That disparity is far too wide.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole set out, the foundations of that learning are the ability to read and getting that right in the early years. Too many children from disadvantaged homes are being failed—allowed to progress through school without the skills that they need to secure good jobs. By comparison, the achievement gaps for children of Indian, Bangladeshi and black African ethnicities have all shrunk. The free-school-meals performance gap for Indian children closed by almost 7% between 2006 and 2013, whereas for white British children it hardly altered. Those statistics show that improvement is none the less possible, but the challenge of assisting disadvantaged white children still requires serious attention.
	The Government deserve credit. The Secretary of State and her predecessor have made it a mission to roll back what was termed
	“the soft bigotry of low expectations”.
	They have enabled schools to lengthen the school day. One of the strongest features of the previous Secretary of State was a stubborn refusal to accept that being born poor should mean that a child will fail at school. Efforts are being made on a number of fronts to challenge that. That is why the curriculum and accountability systems have been altered. There has been encouragement of the study of the more rigorous subjects through the English baccalaureate, because those more rigorous subjects were seen as having greater value; they acted as
	keys to other opportunity, and if they were closed off to the children of poorer families, they would close off opportunity.
	I had concerns about the way in which the English baccalaureate was introduced, and whether it really would benefit the most disadvantaged young people, because I thought the most telling feature of our Committee’s report on the EBacc years ago was a graph that showed that despite a big drop in the number of young people from poorer families sitting the EBacc subjects, the number passing them had not altered a great deal. The fear was that although the intentions were sound, pushing lots of children into courses that they were not going to pass would do them little good.
	However, the data that I have obtained from the Department show that as the proportion of free-school-meals pupils who were entered for the English baccalaureate doubled, from 9% to 18%, between 2011-12 and 2012-13, thanks to then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb)—properly returned to the Front Bench, I have to say—and his colleagues, so the proportion achieving the qualification rose from 5% to 9%. There has been an increase in quantity without a collapse in the percentage achieving a qualification. The introduction of the pupil premium and its extension to early years education are also important measures.
	I have less than a minute to go, so I shall put aside my notes. Although we have frequently mentioned this, it deserves to be reiterated again and again that closing the gap is not just an educational question; it is not just that it is ridiculous that some children, just because their families are poor, should end up doing badly at school. It does not have to be that way, because we know that in other countries it is not that way. There is always a gap: if a child comes from a disadvantaged home, the likelihood is—not individually, but statistically—that there will be a gap, but it is greater in this country than in many others. We need to close it. Why do we need to close it? Obviously for educational reasons, but, as has been said, there is an economic impact. The figures, which are probably rather conservative, show that the impact of providing people with a higher-quality education is immense. In the couple of seconds I have left, I reiterate the importance of quality teachers and ensuring that they are distributed where they are most needed, and getting incentives right for them.

Barry Sheerman: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my slightly late arrival. When the annunciator screen suddenly changes, it is quite a trek to get here on time from the fifth floor of Portcullis House. I also apologise to the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who brilliantly achieved getting this debate.
	I do not want to repeat what other people have said, so I shall rattle through some of my pet theories. Four of us in the Chamber served together on the Children, Schools and Families Committee; we know each other well. This terrible gap in achievement starts very young, and too often we are not honest with parents about what happens in the antenatal and perinatal period. Fetal alcohol syndrome is well known: a pattern of mental and physical deficiencies caused by drinking
	while pregnant, it is seen physically in stunted growth, small head circumference, skin folds at the corner of the eye, small eye openings, short nose and thin upper lip, and mentally in damage to the central nervous system and brain that can lead to the loss of fine motor skills, hearing loss and poor hand-eye co-ordination. Smoking and drug taking during pregnancy also have an effect. That is relevant to the achievement gap because all the evidence shows that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to have parents who drank or smoked during pregnancy. We need better education and support for parents of all backgrounds, and we have to be absolutely blunt with our constituents—be honest about what damage is done before a child is even born.
	As has already been said, early years stimulation is important. Many of us learnt at the knee of Professor Kathy Sylva, of Jesus college, Oxford. She guided me around primary schools, which I knew little about. She taught me how to read a primary school and a classroom. She took us to Denmark and showed us how having highly motivated, well-paid and well-trained people in early years is absolutely brilliant, and when people are low paid, not trained and lacking in the relevant skills, they do not make the difference to children’s lives that they should do. Good, well-trained, well-paid staff—it is not rocket science. People say it is expensive, but if they can do it in Denmark, why can we not do it here?
	I will finish on something that still bugs me from my days as Chair of the Children, Schools and Families Committee—something on which the present Chair of the Education Committee and I disagreed in those days. I am very worried that we do not know where a number of children in our country are or what stimulation and schooling they are getting. I am really worried about home schooling. In my constituency and others, I find a lax attitude to home schooling, and the ease with which people can say a child is being home schooled is dangerous territory. When it was confined to a small number of middle-class families who thought their child might be bullied at school and needed that home support, it was perhaps something we could tolerate, but I always thought that we ought to know where every child is in this country—

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Sheerman: I will not, because I have only six minutes. I always thought that we ought to know where every child is in this country, how it is being supported, how it is being stimulated and how it is being treated. I am increasingly concerned about the large number of children now being home schooled. Their number is growing rapidly.
	I am also worried that people from a strong faith background are choosing to use home schooling. I see it going on in my own community and know it is going on in other communities. I have a lot of evidence that the home school is not genuinely in the home, and the children are ending up in scruffy little back rooms being taught in a way that I do not approve of. I believe that we should know what children are being taught and how they are being taught.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Sheerman: I will, very briefly.

Graham Stuart: I think the hon. Gentleman will get an extra minute if he is lucky. May I say to him that I do not believe he does have an evidence base of any sort for these slurs against home-educating families up and down the country? Why do we not seek a point of agreement that what we should do is try to establish a better evidence base about what is happening in home schooling? If we did that, we could talk on the basis of evidence, rather than slur and anecdote.

Barry Sheerman: When the hon. Gentleman and I were on the Select Committee looking at this subject we disagreed, and we will continue to do so. The increasing evidence of the larger number of home schooled children is a worry in any society. This week, we had a statement on what was happening to children in one town. I believe we have a duty as parliamentarians to know where every child is, what the curriculum is and what the qualifications are of the people looking after them.
	I do not want to make this too party political, but one of the things that we know worked with disadvantaged children was good Sure Start programmes and good children’s centres that were available to support those who did not have much of a home environment—who did not even have the English language at home, where the television was on in a foreign language—and went to school ill prepared to start learning. Those children’s centres were based on evidence and research by people such as Kathy Sylva and Naomi Eisenstadt. Where they are well staffed and well resourced, they make a magnificent difference to the lives of children in the very deprived communities we are talking about. My research shows that about a third have closed down since 2010, and many are under-resourced and do not have the facilities they used to have.
	Any Government elected at the next election have to go back to the concept of children’s centres and Sure Start. They were not perfect and can be improved—everything can be improved—but I want to see little children in those children’s centres, run by highly qualified, highly motivated, well-paid people. When I first became Chairman of the Select Committee, I used to go to schools before the introduction of the minimum wage, and people said, “It’s terrible. The minimum wage will ruin early years care because we are only paying £1 an hour.” I believe that with the minimum wage, the transformation of early years education is halfway there, and we want to go the rest of the distance.

Simon Wright: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on securing it.
	We must do everything we can for those who are struggling to read to ensure that every child has a chance to get on in life. This week, standard assessment tests data showed that 78% of children began secondary school with a good level 4b in reading. That is a welcome increase on last year’s 75%, but it still means that one in five children—over 100,000 in total—are not starting secondary
	school as good readers. These children, who are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, are at risk of being left behind and turned off from learning, and more likely to be limited in their education, training and employment opportunities later in life.
	Closing the attainment gap with disadvantaged children and giving every child the chance to succeed is precisely why Liberal Democrats in government have prioritised the pupil premium, which is now providing an extra £2.5 billion to support disadvantaged children. This is enabling schools across the country to provide the additional help they need to narrow the attainment gap. Through the important work of the Education Endowment Foundation, head teachers can identify the most evidence-based interventions.
	Before applying interventions to improve reading, it is vital that schools diagnose effectively the underlying issues, which could be related to comprehension, decoding words, or retention skills. Interventions that improve reading come in many forms, and several could have a measurable benefit, but a key question for heads is which interventions will provide the greatest impact based on the diagnosed need of the child. The skills of teachers in understanding the child’s needs and applying the most effective response should be developed within an effective programme of continuous professional development. Providing already experienced teachers with the opportunity to expand their knowledge and skills can only improve their ability to offer the most effective support at the right time for an individual child based on the evidence of what works.

Mike Thornton: There seems to have been an obsession lately with the belief that only one method of teaching reading is suitable for all children, in the form of phonics. Does my hon. Friend agree that in fact different children react differently—better and worse—to different forms of reading, and that we should leave it up to the head teacher and the teachers under his aegis to decide which is the best method rather than dictate it from Westminster?

Simon Wright: Phonics provides an important way in which teachers can go about teaching, but it is only one part of the strategy. Ultimately, it is developing and fostering a love of reading that will help children to continue to enjoy life as a reader.
	Those interventions must start earlier than at school, and, because early intervention is so crucial, from next year the early years pupil premium will provide £300 for every disadvantaged three and four-year-old. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, I believe it should be increased and extended in future years. Helping children during the first stages of development helps them to gain the foundation of good language skills, which are essential in developing a curiosity that progresses to reading.
	The importance of a high-quality early education sector cannot be overstated, led by professionals with the training and experience to know how best to help those in difficulty, and working with the parents to encourage support at home. That is why Liberal Democrats support raising the status of teaching professionals in early years settings and the introduction of early years teachers, and why we opposed relaxing child care ratios.
	I have spoken mainly of interventions at school and early years settings, but getting children reading well is a challenge that necessitates efforts from all places—not just schools and early years settings, but, crucially, parents and wider communities. It is only through sustained and joined-up efforts by organisations and individuals that we will help every child to become a good reader. However much value we add through high-quality school and pre-school provision, support from family and the home environment, particularly in the early years, can make an even greater difference to children’s cognitive development. The earlier parents become involved in supporting their children’s literacy, the greater the impact will be. According to the National Literary Trust, even at age 16 parental interest in a child’s reading is the single greatest prediction of achievement.
	Yesterday I met Save the Children to discuss its ongoing work in that area, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend. It has shown how families and communities can contribute to the development of good readers through its Families and Schools Together programme and the Born to Read partnership programme, which links trained volunteers to struggling readers.
	In my own county of Norfolk, more than 10,000 children take part every year in the summer reading challenge at local libraries. That helps to prevent the summer dip in literacy skills, which is particularly damaging for disadvantaged children. It also encourages families to read with their children and create an inspiring home-learning environment.
	This year Norfolk launched the Raising Readers campaign, which aims to bring the wider community on board. Backed by the Eastern Daily Press, one element of the campaign is to encourage business and voluntary groups to give staff two hours’ unpaid leave a month to visit schools and read with children. I was delighted to visit the Kid Ease nursery in my constituency a couple of weeks ago, during which I read to and with three and four-year-olds.
	A range of measures, including the pupil premium, the expansion of free early years education and changes to school accountability measures, will make a difference to many young lives and narrow the unacceptable attainment gap holding back social mobility in this country. However, we require society as a whole to mobilise to address the challenge at hand and work together with parents and schools so that we can look forward to a time when every child will finish primary school as a good reader and go on to enjoy a lifetime of reading.

Dawn Primarolo: May I ask the Front Benchers to share the remaining time between them?

Kevin Brennan: May I thank the Backbench Business Committee for choosing this debate and congratulate the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on securing it? I must confess that I had not realised that she was right honourable. I know that a very high percentage of Lib Dems have been knighted, received damehoods or been made right honourable, but in her case it is thoroughly
	deserved for the work she has done over many years in this House and her commitment to children’s issues, particularly that under discussion.
	I also congratulate all the other speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who is my former boss, the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is a former Chair of the Committee, and the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright). They will forgive me if I do not discuss their contributions—as I was going to do—given the time available.
	There are a number of points to make about the achievement gap in reading between poorer children and their better-off peers. First, it is a real problem. As the right hon. Lady said, current Government statistics show that one child in every four leaves primary school unable to read well, which means that each year 130,000 children are already behind when they start secondary school. Of those, a disproportionately large number are from disadvantaged backgrounds; the proportion who leave primary school unable to read well rises to 40% for children on free school meals. We know that it is a real problem, so it is right that we are debating it today and that we will continue to do so.
	Secondly, it is not a new problem. Successive Governments have made efforts to close the achievement gap. The previous Labour Government made extensive investment, politically and financially, starting with the literacy hour and progressing to schemes such as Every Child a Reader. I could cite evidence of the success of those programmes, including from the Institute for Public Policy Research’s 2012 report, “A long division: Closing the attainment gap in England’s secondary schools”, which clearly showed that the attainment gap between the richest and poorest students narrowed between 2003 and 2011. Despite that, we know that poorer children are still much more likely to have fallen behind in reading by age 11 than their better-off peers.
	Thirdly, the issue really matters. Being behind in reading at age 11 has a massive impact on an individual’s life chances, but it also has a massive impact on the country as a whole. More people who are out of work or on low pay are functionally illiterate—one in four in both instances. More pupils who are excluded from school lack literacy skills. More young offenders and prisoners are poor readers. The list goes on. We can reasonably extrapolate from those statistics and observations that at the macro level crime is higher and economic growth is lower as a result.
	Fourthly, this issue has become party political. In my opinion, it should not be. I am not trying to blame anyone in particular for that phenomenon; we are all politicians and we all have to make our case in order to win power and govern in what we believe to be the country’s best interests. That is the trade we are in and, in my view, it is an honourable one. However, as a former school teacher from a working-class background, I hope that it is possible to reach a consensus on a longer-term approach to making progress on closing the achievement gap in reading.
	Of course, many of the root causes of the problem lie outside the immediate influence of school. Many parents are poor readers, as we know from the statistics, and
	they are therefore not in a strong position to help their children at home, even when well motivated to do so. Fifthly, therefore, this issue is not just about schools. We need to develop policies to support parents and families outside schools, especially in the early years. We are concerned about the overall impact of Government policies, whether in relation to Sure Start, as was mentioned earlier, or financial support to poorer families. Whatever the level of spending available to any Government, we ought to be able to agree on the types of policies beyond school that will help to tackle the problem.
	I noticed a press release today from the Sutton Trust pointing out new analysis showing that parents from the richest fifth of households are four times more likely to pay for extra classes outside school for their children than those from the poorest fifth. I think that we should certainly look at the policy implications for supporting initiatives to give extra support, outside school or at the end of school, to pupils from poorer backgrounds. There are quite a few good initiatives out there for that, and the pupil premium might be a good way of supporting them.
	Sixthly, we should make every effort, as politicians, to evaluate what works, including in schools. That is why Opposition Front Benchers welcomed the setting up of the Education Endowment Foundation, which the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) referred to. It gives us the opportunity to start doing what so many people tell us they want us to do in education, whatever political party we belong to: to set longer-term policies.

Nick Gibb: rose—

Kevin Brennan: Does the Minister want me to give way?

Nick Gibb: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would come to the end of his remarks, because I want to allow my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) to speak as well.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I will be the one to decide that. The maths is that you have eight minutes each and there will then be a minute for the right hon. Lady.

Kevin Brennan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to split the time as per your instructions. I do not have too far to go. I was about to try to bring a note of consensus to the debate before I was, if not rudely interrupted, certainly interrupted.
	If we achieve such longer-term policies, they will bring the quiet revolution that we need, which will last and succeed, rather than a noisy revolution that is doomed not to last. One feature of the most successful jurisdictions in education, which is rarely mentioned, is the stability of their policies. Those policies are based on evidential consensus, rather than on faddish policy making. What matters in teaching children to read is what works.
	Over a long period, politicians have spent too much time telling teachers how to do things and not enough time telling them what we want to be achieved and
	letting them use their initiative, innovation and skill to achieve it. That point relates to the importance of training, the quality of teachers, which has been mentioned, and continuing professional development. The quality of teaching is what will make the biggest contribution to tackling the reading gap in schools. I will conclude my remarks on that point to give the Minister and the mover of the motion time to finish the debate.

Nick Gibb: I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for that and apologise for intervening earlier.
	I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for securing this debate on what is, in everyone’s view, the most important issue in education. It has been a very good and well-informed debate.
	It cannot be acceptable that in 2014, almost 18,000 boys aged 11 cannot read any better than a seven-year-old, nor that in 2013, one in five pupils on free school meals did not achieve the expected standard in reading at key stage 1. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said in an excellent contribution, poor reading can lead to behavioural problems, with one in 10 14-year-olds who are poor readers becoming persistent truants, compared with just 2% of other children.
	Nothing in education is more important than making sure that every child can read. To paraphrase my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, if you don’t learn to read, you can’t read to learn. Of course, our concern about reading standards should not simply be about the utilitarian benefits of reading. In and of itself, reading is one of life’s great joys. No child should be denied the chance to experience that joy for themselves, no matter where they live or what their background. She spoke about delving into other worlds. That is a good phrase to show why reading is so wonderful. We want all children to become fluent and enthusiastic readers. We want them to have the solid grounding in the systematic synthetic phonics that they need to decode the words on the page; the knowledge and appreciation to understand what they are reading; and the enthusiasm and experience to develop a lifelong love of books.
	As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—I call him my hon. Friend because of our years of service together during his chairmanship of the Select Committee—these issues start very early. For some children, they start even before they are born. Research shows that nothing is more fundamental to a child’s later outcomes than early language development. It is the key to mastering communication and literacy later on. Of course, a huge part of that development depends on parents reading, singing and talking to their children. The early years sector also has a crucial role to play, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole said. We know that high-quality early education from the age of two has a lasting impact on children’s development.
	Nowhere is the need to get children off to a flying start more pressing than for disadvantaged children. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, there is an 18-month
	vocabulary gap between children on low incomes and children on high incomes when they arrive at school. If that is left unchecked, they continue to slip further and further behind. That is why, from this September, we are giving some 260,000 of the country’s most disadvantaged two-year-olds 570 hours of funded early education. That is double the number of children who were eligible last year.
	Early years education has to be of a high quality. As my right hon. Friend said, quality is as important as quantity when it comes to early years education. We are also introducing reforms to the national curriculum, which come into force today, giving ever higher importance to reading and literacy.
	Of course, all of that depends on children mastering the essential skill of decoding in the first place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) said, it is right that we should base our practice on what the evidence says works. International evidence shows that the systematic teaching of phonics is the most effective way to teach children to read. It helps all children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, become fluent readers.
	We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the high-quality teaching of phonics in primary schools continues, which is why we have introduced the light-touch phonics check. In the pilot in 2011, 32% of children in the 300 schools involved passed that check. In 2012 that rose to 58%, and last year it had risen to 69% of all pupils meeting the expected standard. That was a significant rise, but just 56% of pupils on free school meals met that standard compared with 72% of other pupils—there was a 17 percentage point gap, which we need to close. Some local authorities, such as Newham, did extremely well in that check, with 76% of pupils passing, but others did not achieve so well, including some in affluent areas. I was encouraged by the initiative to improve reading in Liverpool that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby described. I am sure that we will see a significant rise in Liverpool’s phonics check results as the years go by. We want to ensure that all children are secure in their basic phonic reading skills.
	One point on which I did not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was the starting date of formal education. There is no evidence that it is damaging. The Cambridge review of primary education in 2010 found no clear relationship between starting age and reading achievement, but some studies have found a small and temporary advantage to younger starting ages. My view is that delaying the start of formal education and the teaching of reading would widen the attainment gap, as children from more affluent and educated homes would learn to read at home and other children would not. That gap would continue to grow exponentially once they started their education. In fact, the majority of parents are happy for their child to begin school in the September following their fourth birthday. As we know, and as my right hon. Friend pointed out, children develop at different rates, particularly in the early years, and it is to be expected that some parents will feel that their child is simply not ready to start school when they are four. To allow for that, the admissions code makes it clear that parents can request that their child attends part-time or that their entry is delayed until they reach the point of compulsory education.
	The Government’s overall plan for education is to raise academic standards, make every local school a good school and significantly improve standards of behaviour in our schools. We want to close the attainment gap between those from poorer and wealthier backgrounds, not just in reading but across all academic subjects. However, reading represents the foundation of education, and we need all young people to be reading fluently and with increasing speed by the time they reach key stage 2. We need them to read voraciously throughout primary school, so that they not only become accomplished readers but develop the habit of reading for long stretches of time. That is how we can ensure that every young person achieves their full potential to be as well educated as their ability will allow. That means that they can benefit from all the opportunities that this country has to offer.

Annette Brooke: I thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate. We have achieved quite a lot in our limited time—perhaps we can get a high score for that. What pleases me most is that we have established that the issue matters, and that we all concur that an individual’s joy of reading is crucial, along with the other social and economic outcomes that we all want to see. Reading is so important that we need to look at the evidence and put as much emphasis as we possibly can on giving every child the best start in life.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the achievement gap in reading between poorer children and their better-off peers.

WANSTEAD HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mel Stride.)

John Cryer: I wish to thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate on the closure of Wanstead hospital in Redbridge in north-east London in my constituency.
	Wanstead hospital has not existed as a full general hospital since it closed in 1986. It is where my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) was born 62 years ago—it is his birthday today, so I wanted to mention it. Hon. Members will have noticed all the bunting hung outside to celebrate that event, and he is happy for me to point it out. What remains of Wanstead hospital are two intermediate care wards called Heronwood and Galleon. The care is usually provided to elderly people who have perhaps been ill or in hospital and are not well enough to go home, and they need intermediate care before they can return to their homes.
	This issue affects not only the London borough of Redbridge but three London boroughs: Redbridge, Barking and Dagenham, and Havering. It stretches from the boundary of Redbridge in the west to the boundary between Havering and Essex in the east—a huge swathe of north-east London. The plan is to take the three boroughs, cut all the intermediate care beds—there are currently 104—and reduce them to 40 beds located at King George hospital in Ilford. Apart from anything else, that is six miles from Wanstead so it is a long way for people in my constituency, many of whom are elderly, to travel. The facility in Dagenham at Grays Court is being closed, and the biggest facility is Wanstead hospital, which has 48 intermediate care beds over the two wards. We have already lost 35 beds in St George’s hospital—not to be confused with King George hospital—which is in Hornchurch in Havering and is an old RAF hospital. Those beds were lost last year and the plan is now to concentrate all the intermediate care beds in one place in Ilford at King George hospital.
	The ongoing consultation has been produced and launched by an obscure and unaccountable group led by chief officer Conor Burke and the chairman, Dr Mehta. This group is not a clinical commissioning group; it has an overall strategic planning role above the CCG. Conor Burke and Dr Mehta are accountable to a small board that is made up of representatives of the three CCGs from those boroughs—hardly a shining example of democratic accountability.
	It is basically a deeply flawed consultation. I was told by Conor Burke and Dr Mehta on 13 June that they might possibly be engaging in a consultation that would lead eventually to the closure of what remains of Wanstead hospital and those two wards. They did not volunteer that information; they said that there might possibly be a consultation only because I asked what the future contained for Wanstead hospital. They did not say that it was closing at that point, but that there might be a consultation. I asked three times for an assurance—which I received—that I would be informed as soon as the decision to consult on the future of Wanstead and the other facilities was made. I was not told about that decision. I found out about it only on 18 July when I received a letter with a consultation document stating
	that the consultation was already under way. If they treat elected representatives like that, God knows how they treat members of the public. It calls their track record into question.
	The consultation document has not been made widely available, and I receive e-mail after e-mail saying that it is difficult to get hold of it or access online. It is not in the libraries, GP surgeries or community centres—at least not the ones that I or anybody I know frequent. The document sets out a series of options, and then states, “This is the option we want.” It is clearly pushing respondents in a particular direction. That is not a clear, fair or neutral consultation. They are saying, “We’ll set out a few options for you, but this is the one we want, and if you respond, we want you to support this option.” That is clearly what the consultation document says, as anyone will see, if they can actually get hold of it. Only a couple of hours ago, I received an e-mail from a constituent I know quite well who told me about her difficulty—she is an articulate, intelligent person—getting hold of the consultation document and then responding online.
	Another great difficulty, and a point that has been met with another rebuff, was the request to extend the consultation deadline. The consultation started in July and will end on 1 October, but there has been call after call to extend it until 31 October, because most of the current consultation period falls in the holidays and most people do not know it is happening. I have met scores of people in Wanstead and elsewhere, even people who have used the facilities, who do not know the consultation is up and running. One of the richest ironies of the process is that the newly elected health scrutiny committee on Redbridge council—all people elected on 22 May—clearly requested an extension to 31 October, but so far the health tsars in north-east London have said it is not necessary.
	The plan put forward by the senior health managers was to create two teams. The community treatment team, which provides care in people’s own homes—I have nothing against that, but I think we need the intermediate care beds as well—is not available after 10 pm, and the intensive rehabilitation team stops at 8 pm. It is promised that the CTT will respond to any call within two hours, but if someone needs help at 3 o’clock in the morning, when both teams are off duty, they will need to call the out-of-hours service or the emergency services, which I think is inadequate for a lot of people in need of intermediate care.
	Both teams are up and running and seem to have done a good job. The reaction from the public who have received their care has been very positive—I cannot dispute that. However, we now see a proposal to introduce massive changes to intermediate care across a huge swathe of north-east London, including three of the biggest London boroughs—Havering is the second-biggest and Redbridge is one of the biggest—based on very little evidence. There have only been intermediate care beds at King George for a year, and the beds lost at St George’s in Hornchurch were cut only last year, in 2013, yet we now face a huge cut in bed numbers and their concentration in a facility that has only been run for a year, with two relatively new community-based teams, both based at King George hospital. The system is just not tried and tested. In my view and that of most of the people I represent—in my experience—we are
	not in a position to say the system will work, yet those beds will be lost, and once beds are lost, they are rarely got back.
	The health tsars tell me that the beds are not being used. I dispute that. For one thing, last winter, which was very mild, 75 out of the 104 intermediate care beds were used. That is a relatively low number, but, as I say, it was a mild winter. If this or next winter is very cold and harsh and intermediate care beds are needed, we will only have 40 located at King George, rather than what we used to have, which was three far more accessible facilities across the three boroughs. I am being told stories off the record—nobody has gone on the record—by NHS staff and constituents that people are being turned away from Wanstead hospital and sent to King George in Ilford in order, I can only imagine, to massage the figures. I am also told by doctors and nurses who work for the health service that it is quite difficult to get into Wanstead hospital. Again, that will bring down the bed occupancy figures, adding grist to the mill of the senior health managers who are keen on getting bed occupancy down, so that they have a perfect justification for closing Grays Court and Wanstead hospitals and putting 40 beds in the King George hospital.
	The Minister will be acutely aware, I imagine, of the difficulties experienced by local hospitals, by which I mean general hospitals. Queen’s hospital in Romford has faced enormous difficulties, as I am sure she will be aware. Capacity at Queen’s was forced down because the Care Quality Commission felt that the hospital was not capable of dealing with the relevant number of people—particularly in maternity, but in other areas, too. Whipps Cross hospital in my constituency has also had significant problems, receiving a series of very critical reports from the CQC.
	King George hospital, where the intermediate beds are planned to be located, has been under threat of closure for years. It is only because of the stalwart efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South and others in campaigning to keep the hospital open that it is still there. It could close at some point in the future. Against that background, with all those problems in the acute trusts across north-east London, it seems to me that taking out all the intermediate care beds with huge cuts and putting in 40 beds in Ilford at the King George is, at best, a foolhardy decision.
	Let me make one more point about the consultation—the lack of accountability. The whole process, in my view, has been deeply flawed. Perhaps the greatest talking point among my constituents is the pig-headed refusal to extend the deadline to the consultation until the end of October, which seems a fairly modest sort of request. The demand for it was overwhelming and the scrutiny committee elected on 22 May called for the extension, yet the senior health managers in north-east London seem absolutely determined to refuse that relatively modest request.
	Why are these senior managers so unwilling to respond to public opinion? It is because they do not have to respond to public opinion. The two people responsible for this exercise were not elected. I am not saying that there was a glorious era when everybody running the NHS was elected—such an era never existed—but these two people were certainly not elected and they are not particularly accountable. If they are at all, it is to a fairly obscure board, indirectly appointed. That has
	resulted in a process that provides a pretty disgraceful example of sweeping aside the wishes of local people, local councillors and locally elected representatives, and saying, “We know best. If only all these daft people would leave us alone and let us get on with it, we can make all the decisions and run the health service efficiently.”
	I do not say this as a party political point, but I do not think the national health service was set up for the convenience of well paid senior managers whose wages are paid by the taxpayers I represent. The NHS was set up by Nye Bevan after the second world war in order to provide care for everybody. In future, we should move to a position whereby the people who use the NHS and run it at the sharp end should be far more involved in decisions about how to provide care that will always be free at the point of need. There has to be a change. This exercise has brought home to me just how unaccountable so many senior NHS managers are. If they are unaccountable, they will not care what the people who use the facilities for which they are responsible think. Their lack of accountability has to change in the long term.

Dawn Primarolo: I call the Minister.

Jane Ellison: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker—Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise.

Stephen Pound: It has been a long day.

Jane Ellison: Yes, it has.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) on securing this debate on issues that are clearly of great importance to him and his constituents. Before I try to address some of the issues he has raised—I have listened carefully to what he has said, and if there are issues to which I cannot respond now, I will certainly take them up with NHS London—I would like to put on the record my thanks to all those who work in the NHS, not only in his constituency but right across the service, for their dedication to providing first-class services to his and all our constituents.
	As the hon. Gentleman is aware and as he described in his speech, Wanstead hospital closed in 1986 so the services that are the subject of this debate are provided from the Heronwood and Galleon unit on the site of the former hospital. As he said, it houses 48 rehabilitation beds in two wards, and it is one of three community rehabilitation units providing intermediate care for people in the three boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Redbridge and Havering. The two other units are located at Grays Court in Dagenham and the Foxglove ward at King George hospital. The proposal put forward by the clinical commissioning groups for the three boroughs is to centralise these services at King George hospital, and that is the subject we are addressing this evening.
	As the hon. Gentleman described, the three local CCGs outlined five possible options for the future of intermediate care services in the document issued on
	9 July. I understand what he says about the preferred option steering people, but we would also probably be critical if local health leaders did not tell us what their preferred option was. I suspect we would want them at least to tell us what their thinking was in order to guide the public and be transparent. The proposals are currently the subject of a full 12-week public consultation. I understand that he has recently met Redbridge CCG and has expressed his concern, as he has done again tonight in the House, about the current length of the consultation, asking for an extension. That is being considered by the CCGs and I have asked that they respond to him as soon as possible after this debate, having given that further consideration and heard the strength of his feeling on the subject.
	On support for the proposals, I know that in June, as partners on the local integrated care coalition, the three local authorities all agreed the content of the intermediate care pre-consultation business case. That includes the case for service change and the proposal for the local CCGs to go to public consultation. Subsequently, the three local CCG governing bodies all agreed to go to consultation and to consult on the preferred option, which we have described. I also understand that the Havering health and wellbeing board is very supportive of the proposals, urging the CCGs to get on with the proposed changes more quickly. Discussions are to be held next week with the health and wellbeing boards for Redbridge and Barking and Dagenham.
	The head of nursing at the Partnership of East London Co-operatives has described the proposals in positive terms, and a number of positive comments have been made about the innovative ideas on home care, which the hon. Gentleman has been fair to describe as positive and good for his constituents. I know that in Redbridge the CCG is continuing to engage with community groups, some of which he has alluded to, in order to explain the proposals in more detail, and that is quite right. I was concerned when he said that members of the public locally are not clear about what is happening and do not feel that they are in the know, because these processes should always have at their heart the desire to convey what is being proposed to the public in order that they can comment meaningfully on them.
	Under the preferred option, the overall number of rehabilitation beds provided would reduce from 104 to 40, with the capacity to increase to 61 should the need arise. On the face of it, that does sound like a very significant reduction, and I can understand why the hon. Gentleman and other local people may be concerned when they hear those figures. Local people needing intermediate care have generally been cared for in beds at community rehabilitation units, which means that the number of intermediate care beds across his area is relatively high compared with many other areas. However, I am advised—he made mention of this in his speech—that many of those beds are not being used because there is insufficient demand. The latest bed figures for August show that 49 intermediate care beds—47% of the total capacity—were unused across the area for that month. I note that he disputes those figures, and he makes a fair point about the waxing and waning of demand across the year. I would certainly hope that the local clinicians and managers who put these plans together would take into account those shifts in demand across the year.
	The CCGs have also heard from the public that people want to be cared for and supported in their own homes wherever possible. That is a consistent message we get from the public across a range of health services. Keeping people at home helps them to stay independent for longer, and they recover just as well, and in some cases better and more quickly, at home. That is why the CCGs are developing a model of care where people are cared for and supported in their own homes, not in hospital. That model has been developed by clinicians, with, properly, input from patients and carers. However, patients who need a community bed will still be able to get one. The CCGs believe that concentrating all the rehabilitation beds on one site is the best way to develop high-quality care for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and other patients who need to stay in a rehab unit.
	Clinicians locally believe that that is the safest way to provide care and the best way to provide care of consistent quality. Concentrating the service on one site would enable staff to maintain their practice standards and share expertise more easily. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the CCGs have been trialling two new services—the community treatment team and the intensive rehabilitation service. The community treatment team provides short-term intensive care and support so that people can be cared for in their own home, rather than in hospital. That is something that my constituents, his and other Members’ constituents say all the time: they would much prefer to do that. The intensive rehabilitation service provides support, such as physiotherapy, for people in their own homes and further reduces the need for patients to stay in community beds.
	Figures for the last seven months are very encouraging. They show that nearly all patients supported by the community treatment team—90%—do not go on to be admitted to hospital. There are important issues to consider such as knock-on effects and the sustainability of local health services. The intensive rehabilitation service is similarly successful, with 90% of patients able to recover at home without needing to go to hospital.
	Before the trial of the new services, patients waited an average of five days to access bed-based care. Since the trial, patients are able to access community beds or the intensive rehabilitation service in less than two days on average. Most people who need the community treatment team are contacted within two hours. We should pay tribute to the innovation that has taken place and to some excellent local service delivery.
	I understand that patient satisfaction ratings for both the new services have been consistently high across the three boroughs since the trials began. The results of the latest satisfaction survey, published in June, were taken from patients recently discharged from the community treatment team, and it is good to hear patients being positive about their experience. In Redbridge, patient satisfaction with the service scored an overall average of 9.5 out of 10; 94% of patients and relatives said they would be “extremely likely” to recommend the community treatment team service to family and friends—the new family and friends test is being introduced across the NHS and is a good measure of what people really think of the service—and 100% of community treatment team patients were responded to within two hours.
	Most of the patients surveyed felt that they either would have attended A and E or would have been admitted to hospital if that service had not been available, which goes to my point about the sustainability of local acute services. Since the trial started, 7,600 patients have been seen by those two new services, 1,000 from Redbridge. Only 1,300 patients would have been seen in a “beds only” service. Therefore, we can see service change bringing great quality of service to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others in the area.
	Demand for rehabilitation beds has further reduced during the trial of the new services as more people are being cared for at home. I am advised that, during July, 46 of the available 104 beds were unused, as I have mentioned.
	The Government are clear that reconfiguration of front-line health services is a matter that should be led by the local NHS. It is best placed to know the needs of local people and it knows how to deliver them. Putting the patient first is central to that, although it always concerns me when hon. Members bring to the House their worries that consultation and transparency have not been as good as they could be. I note the hon. Gentleman’s points, as will local health leaders, with concern. I know that they have met him on a number of occasions. I am sure that we will meet him again to take up those points, but at the heart of reconfiguration is the all-important issue of putting patients first and delivering a better service for all patients. The NHS in London, as elsewhere, has to constantly evaluate the way in which services can best be tailored to meet the needs of local people and improve standards of patient care.
	I recognise that proposals for service change inevitably arouse public concern, and that is why it is important that we get consultation processes as good as they possibly can be. It is absolutely the role of hon. Members to express those concerns, to hold all of us who are involved to account, to engage with local clinical and operations leaders and to test the NHS’s response to those concerns.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman has both corresponded and met with senior staff from the local NHS, and I have met with local health leaders, and I hope the response he received from the chief officer of Redbridge clinical commissioning group has gone at least some way towards addressing his concerns about the proposed reconfiguration of intermediate care services. The consultation on the proposals is open until at least 1 October and, as I said earlier, an extension is being considered. I undertake after this debate to further draw to the attention of local health leaders the strength of feeling the hon. Gentleman has expressed tonight about the need for more time for him and his constituents, but I urge him to participate and to make his constituents’ views known during the course of that consultation, as he has done tonight in the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.